Jones et al v. McKesson Corporation et al

Filing 24

ORDER STAYING PROCEEDINGS PENDING ACTION BY THE JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION by Judge Jon S. Tigar, denying 20 Motion for Leave to File; granting 13 Motion to Stay. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/26/2013)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

DOROTHY JONES, et al.,

Case No. 13-cv-03170-JST

Plaintiffs,
8
v.
9
10

MCKESSON CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER STAYING PROCEEDINGS
PENDING ACTION BY THE JUDICIAL
PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT
LITIGATION

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

Before the Court is Defendant GlaxoSmithKline LLC’s Motion to Stay All Proceedings

14

Pending Transfer by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML”) to MDL 1871

15

(E.D.Pa.). ECF No. 13. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court determines that the matter

16

is appropriate for resolution without oral argument, and hereby VACATES the hearing currently

17

scheduled for September 5, 2013. The Court also DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a

18

sur-reply in opposition to the motion to stay and to file a statement of recent decision, ECF No. 20.

19

The JPML issued a Conditional Transfer Order (CTO) on July 18, 2013, conditionally

20

transferring this action to the Avandia MDL. CTO-174, MDL No. 1871. Following the opposition

21

filed by Plaintiffs here and in other actions, the JPML scheduled a hearing on CTO-174 for

22

September 26, 2013. MDL No. 1871, ECF No. 1120.

23

The Court’s power to stay proceedings “is incidental to the power inherent in every court

24

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

25

counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). In determining

26

whether a stay is warranted pending transfer by the JPML, courts consider the “(1) potential

27

prejudice to the non-moving party; (2) hardship and inequity to the moving party if the action is

28

not stayed; and (3) the judicial resources that would be saved by avoiding duplicative litigation if

1

the cases are in fact consolidated.” Couture v. Hoffman-La Roche, Inc., No. 12-cv-2657-PJH,

2

2012 WL 3042994 (N.D. Cal. July 25, 2012) (quoting Rivers v. Walt Disney Co., 980 F.Supp.

3

1358, 1360 (C.D.Cal.1997) (citation omitted)).
The Court finds that the factors weigh in favor of staying these proceedings. In particular,

4
5

the potential prejudice to Plaintiffs of a stay is minimal. The JPML’s decision is likely to be

6

issued shortly. By contrast, not issuing a stay will expose Defendant to the risk of unnecessary

7

proceedings and inconsistent rulings on recurring questions of law and fact pending in multiple

8

cases.

9

Plaintiffs are incorrect that the Court must consider the jurisdictional questions raised in
their motion to remand prior to issuing a stay. When motions to stay and to remand are pending,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

“deference to the MDL court for resolution of a motion to remand often provides ‘the opportunity

12

for the uniformity, consistency, and predictability in litigation that underlies the MDL system.’”

13

Id. (quoting Nielsen v. Merck and Co., No. 07-cv-00076-MJJ, 2007 WL 806510 at *1 (N.D.Cal.

14

Mar. 15, 2007)). In deciding whether to rule on the motion to remand, “courts consider whether

15

the motion raises issues likely to arise in other actions pending in the MDL transferee court.”

16

Conroy v. Fresh Del Monte Produce, Inc., 325 F. Supp. 2d 1049, 1053 (N.D. Cal. 2004).

17

The Ninth Circuit has not adopted Plaintiffs’ approach. Staying these proceedings is

18

appropriate if “the jurisdictional issue is both difficult and similar or identical to those in cases

19

transferred or likely to be transferred." Meyers v. Bayer AG, 143 F. Supp. 2d 1044, 1049 (E.D.

20

Wis. 2001). Moreover, “[i]f the issues involved in the remand motion are likely to arise in the

21

cases that have been or will be transferred, judicial economy would be served by issuing the stay.”

22

Ibid.; see also Aiken, supra, (citing In re Vioxx Prods. Liab. Litig., 360 F. Supp. 2d 1352, 1354

23

(J.P.M.L. 2005) (“The pendency of a motion to remand to state court is not a sufficient basis to

24

avoid inclusion in Section 1407 proceedings.”); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. Sales Practices

25

Litig., 170 F. Supp. 2d 1346, 1347 (J.P.M.L. 2001) (transferring cases; noting “remand motions

26

can be presented to and decided by the transferee judge.”)).

27
28

For the foregoing reasons, this action is STAYED pending further order of the Court.
Should the JPML deny a request to consolidate this action with the MDL proceedings, Defendant
2

1

is hereby ORDERED to file a motion to consider whether to lift the stay within three days of that

2

order.

3
4
5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 26, 2013
______________________________________
JON S. TIGAR
United States District Judge

7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3