Grove et al v. Organon USA, Inc. et al

Filing 24

Order by Hon. Samuel Conti granting 13 Motion to Stay.(sclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/27/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

) Case No. 13-2138 SC
)
NIKOLE GROVE, et al.,
) ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STAY
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
ORGANON USA, INC.; ORGANON
)
PHARMACEUTICAL USA, INC.;
)
ORGANON INTERNATIONAL, INC.;
)
ORGANON BIOSCIENCES NV; AKZO
)
NOBEL NV; SCHERING-PLOUGH
)
CORPORATION; MERCK & COMPANY,
)
INC.; MCKESSON CORPORATION; and )
DOES 1-100,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
)

19
20

Now before the Court is the above-captioned Defendants' motion

21

to stay this case pending the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict

22

Litigation's ("JPML") determination regarding the transfer of this

23

case to MDL No. 1964 in the Eastern District of Missouri (the

24

"NuvaRing MDL").

25

briefed,1 as is Plaintiffs' motion to remand,2 which is now

ECF No. 13 ("Mot. to Stay").

The motion is fully

26
27
28

1

ECF Nos. 17 ("Opp'n to Mot. to Stay"), 18 ("Reply ISO Mot. to
Stay").
2
ECF Nos. 16 ("Mot. to Remand"), 20 ("Opp'n to Mot. to Remand"),
22 ("Reply ISO Mot. to Remand").

1

scheduled for a hearing on July 19, 2013.

2

Defendants' motion to stay appropriate for decision without oral

3

argument per Civil Local Rule 7-1(b).

4

Court GRANTS Defendants' motion and STAYS this case, including its

5

consideration of Plaintiffs' motion to remand, pending the JPML's

6

determination of whether this case should be transferred to the

7

NuvaRing MDL.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

10

As explained below, the

In determining whether a stay is appropriate, the Court must

8
9

The Court finds

consider the particular circumstances and competing interests
involved, and should consider:

11
(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.

12
13
14
15
16
17
18

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

19

1995).

20

after weighing these factors.

It is within the Court's discretion to grant or deny a stay
Id.

The Court finds that all of these factors favor staying this

21
22

case.

First, a stay will not prejudice Plaintiffs, since it will

23

probably be short: the JPML is already considering whether to

24

transfer the case.

25

(Judge Sippel, who oversees the NuvaRing MDL) hear the motion to

26

remand alongside all others like it will outweigh any delays.

27

Second, the stay will impose no burden on Defendants, since they

28

requested it.

Further, the benefits of having a single judge

Third, staying the case promotes judicial economy

2

1

and uniform decision-making, because the motion to remand in this

2

case raises issues identical to those raised in the numerous other

3

cases against Defendants in this district.

4

cases involving the same causes of action and jurisdictional

5

questions have already been stayed in this Court and elsewhere.

6

Having a single judge oversee all of these cases encourages

7

efficiency and uniform decision-making.

8

is not inconsistent with or burdensome for the interests of non-

9

parties or the general public.

United States District Court

Finally, staying the case

This reasoning is consistent with recent decisions by Judges

10
For the Northern District of California

Moreover, several other

11

Hamilton and Armstrong to stay cases pending transfers to the

12

NuvaRing MDL.

13

Organon, No. 13-cv-01535 PJH; Gonzales v. Organon, No. 12-cv-6161

14

PJH.

15

See Wilson v. Organon, 13-cv-0705 CW.

16

Central District of California have stayed eight similar actions.

17

See Reply ISO Mot. to Stay at 1 n.1 (citing the Central District's

18

orders).

19

See Tucker v. Organon, No. 13-cv-0728 SBA; Burton v.

Judge Wilken stayed a similar case without issuing an order.
The District Courts in

Plaintiffs urge the Court to rule on their motion to remand

20

before considering the motion to stay.

See Opp'n to Mot. to Stay

21

at 2 (citing Meyers v. Bayer A.G., 143 F. Supp. 2d 1044, 1049 (E.D.

22

Wis. 2001)).

23

Court that it can consider a motion to stay before a motion to

24

remand, and that the benefits of having so many almost-identical

25

motions to remand decided by a single judge (if the cases are

26

transferred) far outweigh risking an array of conflicting opinions.

27

This Court's recent decisions support this conclusion.

28

Plaintiffs' arguments otherwise are compelling: the Court will not

The Court declines to do so.

3

It is obvious to the

None of

1

apply other courts' law on this matter, nor will the Court find

2

that Plaintiffs have shown any past or future prejudice resulting

3

from waiting a little longer for their motion's disposition.

4

is, after all, not set for a hearing until late July, the same time

5

the JPML will consider Plaintiffs' objection to its conditional

6

transfer order.)

7

(It

Accordingly, this case and the Court's determination of

8

Plaintiffs' motion to remand are STAYED pending the JPML's decision

9

on transferring the case.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12
13

Dated: June 27, 2013

14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

4