Howell et al v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company et al

Filing 21

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB CO.'S MOTION TO STAY; VACATING MAY 17, 2013 HEARING; VACATING MAY 31, 2013 HEARING ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO REMAND; DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on May 7, 2013. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/7/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
11

KENNETH R. HOWELL, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

12
13
14
15

No. C-13-1516 MMC

v.
BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, et
al.,
Defendants.

16

/

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT
BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB CO.’S
MOTION TO STAY; VACATING MAY 17,
2013 HEARING; VACATING MAY 31,
2013 HEARING ON PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION TO REMAND; DENYING
WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME

17
18

Before the Court is defendant Bristol-Myers Squibb Company’s “Motion to Stay the

19

Proceedings Pending Transfer to the Plavix MDL,” filed April 10, 2013. Plaintiffs have filed

20

opposition, to which defendant has replied. Having read and considered the papers filed in

21

support of and in opposition to the motion, the Court deems the matter suitable for decision

22

on the parties’ respective written submissions, VACATES the hearing scheduled for May

23

17, 2013, and rules as follows.

24

The instant complaint “involve[s] claims of death, personal injury, economic

25

damages, punitive damages, and other claims of damages arising from the use of Plavix”

26

(see Compl. ¶ 1) brought on behalf of seventy-five named plaintiffs. A number of

27

complaints raising similar claims are pending in a coordinated proceeding in the District of

28

New Jersey, titled In re: Plavix Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litig., MDL

1

No. 2418. (See Def’s. Mot. Ex. A.) On April 10, 2013, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict

2

Litigation (“JPML”) conditionally transferred the instant action to the District of New Jersey

3

(see Def’s Mot. Ex. D), and, according to the JPML’s website, will consider plaintiffs’

4

opposition to transfer at a hearing scheduled for May 30, 2013. Defendant asks the Court

5

to stay proceedings in the instant action pending the JPML’s determination as to whether

6

the instant action will be transferred.
Other than defendant’s motion to stay, the only matter pending before the Court is

7
8

plaintiffs’ recently filed motion to remand, noticed for hearing on May 31, 2013.

9

Accordingly, the issue now presented is, in effect, whether this Court should consider the

10

merits of plaintiffs’ motion to remand, or, instead, stay the instant action, with the

11

understanding that, in the event of transfer, the motion will be heard by the transferee

12

court.
Because a decision as to whether the instant action will be transferred will, in all

13
14

likelihood, be made shortly by the JPML, the stay sought by defendant likely will be of

15

limited duration. In light of the anticipated brevity of the stay, and no significant prejudice

16

resulting from such stay having been identified by plaintiffs, the Court, in the interests of

17

conserving judicial resources and promoting consistency in the determination of common

18

issues,1 finds a stay of the proceedings is appropriate. See Rivers v. Walt Disney Co., 980

19

F. Supp. 1358, 1360 (C.D. Cal. 1997) (identifying factors to consider when determining

20

whether to stay action pending decision by JPML).
Accordingly, defendant’s motion for a stay is hereby GRANTED.

21
22

//

23
1

24
25
26
27
28

The issue presented by plaintiffs’ motion to remand is whether McKesson
Corporation has been fraudulently joined as a defendant to the instant action. The same
issue has been raised in motions to remand filed in other actions that are currently pending
in this district and have been stayed pending a decision by the JPML as to transfer of those
actions to the District of New Jersey. See, e.g., Kinney v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., Civil
Case No. 12-4477 EMC (Doc. 45); Aiken v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., Civil Case No. 125208 RS (Doc. 34); Vanny v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., Civil Case No. 12-5752 SI (Doc.
No. 32); Belinda v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., Civil Case No. 12-5941 (Doc No. 15); Arnold
v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., Civil Case No. 12-6426 TEH (Doc. No. 31); Green v. BristolMyers Squibb Co., Civil Case No. 13-1489 SC (Doc. No. 17).
2

1

In light of the stay, the May 31, 2013 hearing on plaintiffs’ motion to remand is

2

hereby VACATED, and plaintiffs’ motion for an order shortening time to hear said motion is

3

hereby DENIED as moot.

4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
6

Dated: May 7, 2013
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3