Bankert et al v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company et al

Filing 20

ORDER by Judge Edward M. Chen Granting 11 Defendants' Motion to Stay. Hearing 12 on Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand is VACATED. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/10/2013)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

VONDELL BANKERT, et al.,

9

Plaintiffs,
v.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

No. C-13-4003 EMC

BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB CO., et al.,

12

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO STAY

Defendants.
___________________________________/

(Docket No. 11)
13
14
15

Plaintiffs have filed suit against Defendants for, inter alia, strict liability, negligence, breach

16

of warranty, and fraud. The claims are all related to the ingestion of a dug known as Plavix. Those

17

defendants who have appeared (i.e., Bristol-Myers and the Sanofi entities) have moved the Court to

18

stay proceedings in this case because they have “tagged [the] case for transfer [to the Plavix MDL]

19

and anticipate that the JPML will issue a conditional transfer order for [the] case soon.” Mot. at 5.

20

Moving Defendants note that twelve different judges in this District – including the undersigned –

21

have granted stays in similar Plavix actions pending transfer to the MDL. See Reply at 2. Moving

22

Defendants also note that the JPML has, for many similar Plavix cases, issued conditional transfer

23

and/or transfer orders.

24

As Moving Defendants note, this Court previously granted a stay in multiple cases pending a

25

decision by the MDL as to whether the cases should be part of the Plavix MDL. See Docket No. 11

26

(Ex. D) (order in Kinney v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., No. C-12-4477 EMC (N.D. Cal.) and related

27

cases). Other judges in this District have done the same. The reasoning in those cases is largely

28

1

applicable here, and Plaintiffs have failed to convince the Court that a stay would otherwise be

2

inappropriate.

3

Accordingly, the Court hereby GRANTS Defendants’ motion to stay. Plaintiffs’ motion to

4

remand is deferred until after the JPML decides whether the case should remain here or be

5

transferred to the Plavix MDL. The hearing on both the motion to stay and the motion to remand is

6

hereby VACATED.

7

This order disposes of Docket No. 11.

8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
Dated: October 10, 2013

12
_________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

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

2