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
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?