Green, et al., v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company et al

Filing 17

Order by Hon. Samuel Conti granting 9 Motion to Stay.(sclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/1/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

ROBERT L. GREEN, et al.,

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
11

Plaintiffs,
v.

12

14

BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY,
MCKESSON CORPORATION, and DOES 1
TO 100,

15

Defendants.

13

) Case No. C 13-1489 SC
)
) ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
) STAY
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

16
17

Now before the Court is Defendant Bristol-Myers Squibb's

18

("BMS") motion to stay these proceedings pending transfer of this

19

action to the Plavix MDL, ECF No. 9 ("MTS"), and Plaintiffs' motion

20

to remand, ECF No. 13 ("MTR").

21

relate the instant action to Caouette v. Bristol-Myers Squibb

22

Company, Case No. 12-cv-01814-ECM (the "Caouette Action"), which is

23

currently pending before Judge Chen in this District.

24

Action Dkt. No. 75.

25

14 ("Opp'n"), 16 ("Reply"), and appropriate for determination

26

without oral argument, Civ. L.R. 7-1(b).

27

below, the Court stays this matter, including its consideration of

28

Plaintiffs' motion to remand, pending a determination on whether

There is also a pending motion to

Caouette

The motion to stay is fully briefed, ECF Nos.

For the reasons set forth

1

the case should be transferred to the Plavix MDL or related to the

2

Caouette action.

3
4
5
6
7
8
9

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

10

In determining whether a stay is appropriate, the Court is to
consider the following:
(1) the interest of the plaintiffs in proceeding
expeditiously with this litigation or any particular
aspect
of
it,
and
the
potential
prejudice
to
plaintiffs of a delay; (2) the burden which any
particular aspect of the proceedings may impose on
defendants; (3) the convenience of the court in the
management of its cases, and the efficient use of
judicial resources; (4) the interests of persons not
parties to the civil litigation; and (5) the interest
of the public in the pending civil and criminal
litigation.

11

Keating v. Office of Thrift Supervision, 45 F.3d 322, 325 (9th Cir.

12

1995).

13

The Court finds that these factors favor staying this action.

14

A stay would not prejudice Plaintiffs because it will likely be

15

short and Plaintiffs' motion to remand could also be heard by Judge

16

Chen or as part of the Plavix MDL.

BMS would not be burdened

17

because it is moving for the stay.

Staying the case would promote

18

judicial economy and uniform decision-making since the motion to

19

remand filed in this case raises jurisdictional issues identical to

20

those raised in a number of other cases filed against BMS in this

21

District.

22

transferred to the Plavix MDL, where they can be decided in a

23

consistent and efficient manner.

24

inconsistent with the interests of non-parties or the general

25

public.

26

Judges Seeborg, Illston, Henderson, and Gonzalez Rogers in this

27

District, granting motions to stay pending determination of whether

28

other cases filed against BMS should be transferred to the Plavix

All of these cases might be related before Judge Chen or

Finally, a stay would not be

This reasoning is consistent with recent decisions by

2

1

MDL or related before Judge Chen.

2

12-05752 SI, C12-6426 TEH, 12-CV-5941 YGR.

3

See Case Nos. C 12-05208 RS, C

Plaintiffs argue that the Court should rule on their motion to

4

remand prior to considering the motion to stay.

5

based in part on a February 12, 2013 decision by the Judicial Panel

6

on Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML") declining to transfer certain

7

matters to the Plavix MDL.

8

"[U]ntil the remand motions are decided, the basis or bases on

9

which the actions were properly removed 'assuming removal was

Opp'n at 6-7.

The JPML explained:

10

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

Opp'n Ex. C at 4.

This argument is

proper' are unclear."

But the JPML's concerns

11

stemmed from the fact that these actions had been removed from

12

state court as "mass actions" under the Class Action Fairness Act

13

("CAFA").

In this case, BMS did not remove under CAFA.

14

For these reasons the Court GRANTS Defendant Bristol-Myers

15

Squibb's motion to stay and STAYS this matter pending determination

16

of whether it should be transferred to the Plavix MDL or related

17

before Judge Chen.

18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20
21
22

Dated:

May 1, 2013
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28

3