Baker v. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc.

Filing 13

ORDER STAYING CASE pending Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation's consideration of transfer motion. Briefing schedule and hearing date on 9 Defendant's motion to dismiss are vacated. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 03/12/13. (tehlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/12/2013)

Download PDF
1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 5 NICOLE BAKER, 6 7 8 Plaintiff, v. NO. C13-0490 TEH ORDER STAYING CASE BAYER HEALTHCARE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., 9 Defendant. 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 Defendant Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Inc. has noticed a motion to dismiss 13 and motion to strike for hearing on April 8, 2013. The parties subsequently filed a 14 stipulation and proposed order to extend the briefing schedule. 15 Although the parties have not notified the Court of any related proceedings, it has 16 come to the Court’s attention that Plaintiff Nicole Baker has notified the Judicial Panel on 17 Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML”) that this case is potentially related to Multidistrict 18 Litigation (“MDL”) Docket No. 2434, In re: Mirena IUD Products Liability Litigation. The 19 JPML is scheduled to hear a motion to transfer these cases on March 21, 2013. 20 With good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this case is STAYED 21 pending the JPML’s consideration of the transfer motion in the interests of judicial economy 22 and because it does not appear that a stay will cause prejudice to either party. See Landis v. 23 N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55 (1936) (courts have inherent power to control their own 24 dockets, including the power to stay proceedings in the interests of judicial economy); In re 25 Apple iPhone Application Litig., Case No. 10-CV-05878-LHK, 2011 WL 2149102, at *2 26 (N.D. Cal. May 31, 2011) (factors courts consider when weighing a stay include 27 “(1) conserving judicial resources and avoiding duplicative litigation; (2) hardship and 28 inequity to the moving party if the action is not stayed; and (3) potential prejudice to the 1 non-moving party”). Accordingly, the briefing schedule and hearing date on Defendant’s 2 pending motion to dismiss are hereby vacated. 3 If the JPML does not transfer this case to the MDL court, then Defendant shall 4 re-notice its motion for a date at least five weeks from the date of the re-notice. Plaintiff’s 5 opposition will be due two weeks from the date of the re-notice, and Defendant’s reply will 6 be due three weeks from the date of the re-notice. 7 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 Dated: 03/12/13 THELTON E. HENDERSON, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?