Adkins et al v. McKesson Corporation et al

Filing 22

Order by Hon. Samuel Conti granting 11 Motion to Stay.(sclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/15/2013)

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
19
20
21
22

) Case No. C 13-3048 SC
)
JO-MAR ADKINS Individually and ) ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STAY
as Successor-in-interest on
) PROCEEDINGS PENDING TRANSFER
behalf of the Estate of
)
MARGARET RUSSELL, Deceased, et )
al.,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
McKESSON CORPORATION,
)
SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORPORATION )
d/b/a GLAXOSMITHKLINE, and DOES )
11-50,
)
)
Defendants,
)
)
v.
)
)
DOES 51-100,
)
)
Nominal Defendants
)
for Wrongful Death
)
Actions
)
)
)

23
24

Now before the Court is Defendant GlaxoSmithKline LLC's

25

("Defendant") Motion to Stay All Proceedings Pending Transfer by

26

the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML") to

27

Multidistrict Litigation ("MDL") Docket No. 1871, In re Avandia

28

Marketing Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation (the

1

"Avandia MDL").

This case has been conditionally transferred to

2

the Avandia MDL.

3

transfer and this motion, which is fully briefed and appropriate

4

for decision without oral argument per Civil Local Rule 7-1(b).

5

Plaintiffs also ask the Court to rule on their motion to remand

6

before deciding the motion to stay.

The above-captioned Plaintiffs oppose that

Out of deference to the MDL process and the uniformity and

7
8

predictability it promotes, the Court declines to decide

9

Plaintiffs' motion to remand at this time.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

10

Upon careful consideration, the Court finds that staying this

11

case is warranted because (1) potential prejudice to Plaintiffs is

12

minimal, given how soon the JPML's decision is likely to issue; (2)

13

not staying the matter could expose Defendant to needless

14

litigation and inconsistent rulings in their pending cases; and (3)

15

not staying the case would waste judicial resources, since these

16

cases may be consolidated in the Avandia MDL.

17

Hoffman-La Roche, Inc., No. 12-cv-2657 PJH, 2012 WL 3042994 (N.D.

18

Cal. July 25, 2012) (listing factors to be considered in issuing a

19

stay); see also Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936) (the

20

court's power to stay cases is inherent in its ability to control

21

disposition of cases on its docket).

22

///

23

///

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///

2

See Couture v.

1

The Court STAYS all matters in this case pending the JPML's

2

decision on whether this case should be transferred.

The parties

3

are ORDERED to file a joint notice with the Court within seven (7)

4

days of the JPML's decision.

5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
8

Dated: August 15, 2013

9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

3