Allen et al v. McKesson Corporation et al

Filing 20

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STAY AND VACATING HEARING ON MOTION TO REMAND PENDING RULING FROM MDL. Signed by Judge JEFFREY S. WHITE on 7/30/13. (jjoS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/30/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

VANESSA ALLEN, et al.,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

No. C 13-03110 JSW

Plaintiffs,

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
STAY AND VACATING
HEARING ON MOTION TO
REMAND PENDING RULING
FROM MDL

v.
MCKESSON CORPORATION, et al.,

13

Defendants.

(Docket Nos. 12, 14)
/

14
15

INTRODUCTION

16

This matter comes before the Court upon consideration of the Motion to Stay All

17

Proceedings Pending Transfer by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to MDL 1871

18

(E.D. Pa.), filed by Defendant Glaxosmithkline LLC (“GSK”) (Docket No. 14). The Court has

19

considered the parties’ papers, relevant legal authority, and the record in this case, and it finds

20

the motion suitable for disposition without oral argument. See N.D. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). The

21

Court VACATES the hearing scheduled for November 1, 2013, and it GRANTS GSK’s motion

22

to stay. In light of this ruling, the Court VACATES the hearing scheduled for November 1,

23

2013, on Plaintiffs’ motion to remand (Docket No. 12), which shall be rescheduled, if

24

necessary.

25
26

BACKGROUND
On or about October 16, 2007, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML”)

27

established a multidistrict litigation regarding product liability cases involving the drug

28

Avandia®, In re Avandia Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Libility Litigation, MDL-

1

1871 (“In re Avandia”). (Docket No. 14-1, Declaration of Steven J. Boranian (“Boranian

2

Decl.”), ¶¶ 2-3, Ex. A.)

3

On June 25, 2013, the Plaintiffs filed their Complaint against GSK and McKesson

4

Corporation in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Francisco

5

(“San Francisco Superior Court”), and asserted a number of state law claims based on injuries

6

they allegedly suffered as a result of using Avandia®. (See generally Notice of Removal, Ex. A

7

(Complaint).) This case is one of many cases filed in San Francisco Superior Court by

8

Plaintiffs’ counsel. (Id., Ex. D.)1

9

On July 3, 2013, GSK removed this action - and many, if not all, of the thirty-seven
other cases filed by Plaintiffs’ counsel - to this Court. GSK asserts that, because McKesson has

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

been fraudulently joined, the Court has diversity jurisdiction. (Notice of Removal ¶ 17.) GSK

12

also contends that this case qualifies as a “mass action” under the Class Action Fairness Act

13

(“CAFA”), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d)(11). (Id. ¶ 5.) At the time of removal, GSK

14

had not been served with the Complaint, but stated that, on information and belief, McKesson

15

was served on or about July 2, 2013. (Id. ¶ 6.)

16

On July 9, 2013, GSK notified the JPML that this action was pending, and it seeks to

17

stay this case pending transfer to In re Avandia. (Boranian Decl., ¶ 5.) Plaintiffs have opposed

18

GSK’s transfer motion before the JPML, oppose a stay in this case, and have filed a separate

19

motion to remand this case to San Francisco Superior Court.

20
21

ANALYSIS
“[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to

22

control disposition of the cases on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for

23

counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). “The exertion of

24

this power calls for the exercise of sound discretion.” CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268

25

(9th Cir. 1962). Accordingly, it is within this Court’s discretion to determine whether a stay is

26
27
28
The undersigned has at least at least seven of these cases pending on its docket.
2

1

warranted. The competing interests that a district court must weigh in deciding whether to grant

2

a stay include: (1) “possible damage which may result from granting a stay, (2) the hardship or

3

inequity which a party may suffer in being required to go forward, and (3) the orderly course of

4

justice measured in terms of the simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions of

5

law which could be expected to result from a stay.” Id. (citing Landis, 299 U.S. at 254-55).

6

In the context of a motion to stay pending a motion to consolidate cases before the

7

JPML, district courts should consider the following factors: (1) potential prejudice to the non-

8

moving party; (2) hardship and inequity to the moving party if the action is not stayed; and (3)

9

the judicial resources that would be saved by avoiding duplicative litigation if the cases are in
fact consolidated. Rivers v. Walt Disney Co., 980 F. Supp. 1358, 1360 (C.D. Cal. 1997).

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

“Generally, jurisdiction is a preliminary matter that should be resolved before all

12

others.” Leeson v. Merck & Co., Inc., 2006 WL 3230047, *2 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 27, 2006); see also

13

Villarreal v. Chrysler Corp.,, 1996 WL 116832, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar.12, 1996) (“Judicial

14

economy will best be served by addressing the remand issue [before a party’s motion to stay]

15

because a determination on this issue will facilitate litigation in the appropriate forum.”). Some

16

courts, however, have held that “the calculus changes somewhat when deference to a MDL

17

court will further ‘the uniformity, consistency, and predictability in litigation that underlies the

18

MDL system.’” Leeson, 2006 WL 3230047, *2 (quoting Conroy v. Fresh Del Monte Produce

19

Inc., 325 F. Supp. 2d 1049, 1053 (N.D. Cal.2004)).

20

Plaintiffs’ motion to remand raises issues that are similar to issues raised in motions to

21

remand in the cases that are assigned to the undersigned Judge as well the cases assigned to

22

other judges in this District. Further, the presiding judge in In re Avandia has addressed many

23

of these same issues, including fraudulent joinder, fraudulent misjoinder of plaintiffs, the forum

24

defendant rule, and questions relating to removal by defendants who have not yet been served.

25

See, e.g., In re Avandia, 624 F. Supp. 2d 396, 418-20 (E.D. Pa. 2009). Therefore, a stay will

26

promote judicial economy, uniformity and consistency in decision making. Further a short stay

27

will not prejudice Plaintiffs, because they can renew their motion to remand in MDL 1871. If

28

the case is not transferred, this Court will resolve the motion to remand expeditiously. Finally,
3

1

a brief stay will avoid duplicative litigation. Indeed, several other courts within this District

2

have granted motions to stay in Avandia cases filed by Plaintiffs’ counsel, and in at least one of

3

those cases, the plaintiffs had filed a motion to remand. (See Boranian Decl., Ex. C; Docket No.

4

19-1, Declaration of Steven J. Boranian in Support of GSK Reply, Ex. A.)

5

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the motion to stay pending a ruling by JPML on

6

whether this case will be transferred to In re Avandia, MDL 1871. The parties shall file a joint

7

notice with the Court within seven (7) days of any such ruling.

8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 30, 2013
JEFFREY S. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4