Dudley et al v. McKesson Corporation et al

Filing 20

Order by Hon. Samuel Conti granting 13 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

) Case No. C 13-3168 SC
)
LINDA DUDLEY, et al.,
) ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STAY
) PROCEEDINGS PENDING TRANSFER
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
McKESSON CORPORATION,
)
SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORPORATION )
d/b/a GLAXOSMITHKLINE, and DOES )
1-100
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
)

17
18
19

Now before the Court is Defendant GlaxoSmithKline LLC's

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

Marketing Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation (the

24

"Avandia MDL").

25

the Avandia MDL.

26

transfer and this motion, which is fully briefed and appropriate

27

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

28

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

This case has been conditionally transferred to
The above-captioned Plaintiffs oppose that

1
2

before deciding the motion to stay.
Out of deference to the MDL process and the uniformity and

3

predictability it promotes, the Court declines to decide

4

Plaintiffs' motion to remand at this time.

5

Upon careful consideration, the Court finds that staying this

6

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

7

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

8

not staying the matter could expose Defendant to needless

9

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

10

not staying the case would waste judicial resources, since these

11

cases may be consolidated in the Avandia MDL.

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

disposition of cases on its docket).

17

See Couture v.

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

18

decision on whether this case should be transferred.

The parties

19

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

20

days of the JPML's decision.

21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23
24

Dated: August 15, 2013

25

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

26
27
28

2