Butler et al v. McKesson Corporation et al

Filing 20

ORDER GRANTING 14 Motion to Stay All Proceedings Pending Transfer by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to MDL 1871, VACATING Hearing on 15 Motion to Remand; and VACATING Case Management Conference. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on August 12, 2013. (jswlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/12/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

BOBBY BUTLER, et al.,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

No. C 13-03154 JSW

Plaintiffs,

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

v.
MCKESSON CORPORATION, et al.,

13

Defendants.
/

(Docket Nos. 14, 15)

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 15, 2013, and it GRANTS GSK’s

22

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

23

November 15, 2013, on Plaintiffs’ motion to remand (Docket No. 15), and the case management

24

conference scheduled for November 8, 2013. The Court shall reschedule these hearings, if

25

necessary.

26
27
28

BACKGROUND
On or about October 16, 2007, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML”)
established a multidistrict litigation regarding product liability cases involving the drug

1

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

2

1871 (“In re Avandia”). (Docket No. 14-2, Declaration of Steven J. Boranian (“Boranian

3

Decl.”), ¶¶ 2-3, Ex. B.)

4

On June 27, 2013, the Plaintiffs filed their Complaint against GSK and McKesson

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

attorneys, and is one of several cases pending before the undersigned.
On July 9, 2013, GSK removed this action, and others, to this Court. GSK asserts that,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

because McKesson has been fraudulently joined, the Court has diversity jurisdiction. (Notice of

12

Removal ¶ 17.) GSK also contends that this case qualifies as a “mass action” under the Class

13

Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d)(11). (Id. ¶ 5.) At the

14

time of removal, GSK had not been served with the Complaint, but stated that, on information

15

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

16

On July 16, 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., ¶ 4.) The JPML has issued a

18

conditional transfer order, but Plaintiffs oppose that transfer order. Plaintiffs oppose a stay in

19

this case, and they have filed a separate motion to remand this case to San Francisco Superior

20

Court.

21
22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

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

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

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

7

the judicial resources that would be saved by avoiding duplicative litigation if the cases are in

8

fact consolidated. Rivers v. Walt Disney Co., 980 F. Supp. 1358, 1360 (C.D. Cal. 1997).

9

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

10

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

11
For the Northern District of California

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

6

United States District Court

5

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

a brief stay will avoid duplicative litigation. Indeed, this Court already has granted motions to

28

stay in the Avandia cases pending on its docket. The same is true for other courts within this
3

1

District. (See Boranian Decl., Ex. A; Docket No. 19-1, Declaration of Steven J. Boranian in

2

Support of GSK Reply, Ex. A.)

3

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

4

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

5

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

6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 12, 2013
JEFFREY S. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

8
9

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