Bennett et al v. Organon USA Inc.

Filing 24

ORDER (1) GRANTING MOTION TO STAY; (2) DENYING MOTION TO REMAND WITHOUT PREJUDICE; (3) VACATING HEARING by Judge Jon S. Tigar, granting 13 Motion to Stay; denying without prejudice 18 Motion to Remand. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/13/2013)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

HEATHER CARLENA BENNETT, et al.,

Case No. 13-cv-03606-JST

Plaintiffs,
8
v.
9
10

ORGANON USA INC., et al.,
Defendants.

Re: ECF Nos. 13, 18

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

ORDER (1) GRANTING MOTION TO
STAY; (2) DENYING MOTION TO
REMAND WITHOUT PREJUDICE; (3)
VACATING HEARING

12
In this products liability action, Defendants Organon USA, Organon Pharmaceuticals
13
USA, and Organon International move to stay the case pending a decision by the JPML as to the
14
transfer of this action to MDL No. 1964. Plaintiffs oppose the motion to stay and move to remand
15
the action to the San Francisco Superior Court. Because the motions are suitable for
16
determination without oral argument, the hearing scheduled for September 19, 2013, is
17
VACATED. See Civil L.R. 7-1(b). For the reasons set forth below, the motion to stay is
18
GRANTED and the motion to remand is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
19
I.

BACKGROUND

20
Plaintiffs filed this action in San Francisco Superior Court on July 29, 2013, for claims
21
arising of that the injuries suffered by persons who used NuvaRing, a contraceptive product
22
manufactured by Defendants Organon USA, Organon Pharmaceutical USA, Organon
23
International, Organon Biosciences, Akzo Novel NV, and Merck & Company, Inc, and distributed
24
by McKesson Corporation. The complaint asserts claims under California law, including strict
25
products liability, negligence, breach of warranty, deceit by concealment, negligent
26
misrepresentation, fraud by concealment, and violations of Business and Professions Code §§
27
17200 and 17500. Defendants removed this action on the basis of diversity of citizenship on
28

1

August 2, 2013.
The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML”) established MDL No. 1964 (“the

2
3

NuvaRing MDL”) in the Eastern District of Missouri in August 2008 to coordinate pending

4

federal NuvaRing cases. See In re NuvaRing Prods. Liab. Litig., 572 F. Supp. 2d 1382 (J.P.M.L.

5

2008).
After Defendants removed this case, they identified the action to the JPML as a potential

6
7

tag-along action for transfer to the NuvaRing MDL.
Defendants move to stay this action pending a final decision by the JPML as to their

8
9
10

transfer petition. Plaintiffs oppose the motion to stay and move instead to remand the action.
II.

A district court’s discretion to stay proceedings “is incidental to the power inherent in

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

LEGAL STANDARD

12

every court to control disposition of the cases on its docket with economy of time and effort for

13

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

14

determining whether a stay is warranted pending the JPML’s determination of a transfer petition,

15

courts consider the “(1) potential prejudice to the non-moving party; (2) hardship and inequity to

16

the moving party if the action is not stayed; and (3) the judicial resources that would be saved by

17

avoiding duplicative litigation if the cases are in fact consolidated.” Couture v. Hoffman-La

18

Roche, Inc., No. 12-cv-2657-PJH, 2012 WL 3042994 (N.D. Cal. July 25, 2012) (quoting Rivers v.

19

Walt Disney Co., 980 F.Supp. 1358, 1360 (C.D. Cal.1997) (citation omitted)).
When motions to stay and to remand are pending, “deference to the MDL court for

20
21

resolution of a motion to remand often provides the opportunity for the uniformity, consistency,

22

and predictability in litigation that underlies the MDL system.” Id. (citation and internal quotation

23

marks omitted). In deciding whether to rule on the motion to remand, “courts consider whether

24

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

25

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

26

III.

27
28

DISCUSSION
The Court concludes that each of the factors discussed above weighs strongly in favor of

staying this action pending the JPML’s final resolution of the transfer petition.
2

The potential prejudice to Plaintiffs that could result from a stay is minimal, as the JPML’s

1
2

decision is likely to be issued shortly. On the other hand, Defendants would face the risk of

3

unnecessary proceedings and inconsistent rulings on recurring questions of law and fact if the case

4

is not stayed. Finally, as several judges in this district have recognized, staying a NuvaRing action

5

pending a final decision as to whether the action should be transferred to the NuvaRing MDL

6

promotes judicial economy. See, e.g., Clarke v. Organon, et al., Case No. 4:13-cv-02290-CW

7

(N.D. Cal. July 10, 2013) (granting motion to stay on the ground that doing so will “avoid

8

duplicative litigation and prevent inconsistent rulings on common questions that the MDL court is

9

likely to address”).

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

IV.

CONCLUSION
Defendants’ motion to stay this action pending a final determination by the JPML as to the

12

transferability of this action to MDL No. 1964 is GRANTED. Plaintiffs’ motion to remand is

13

DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiffs shall file a motion to lift the stay in the event that

14

the JPML issues a final order denying Defendants’ requested transfer.

15
16
17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 13, 2013
______________________________________
JON S. TIGAR
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3