Yuan et al v. Lewey et al

Filing 13

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STAY AND DENYING MOTION TO REMAND by Hon. William Alsup granting 5 Motion to Stay.(whalc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/28/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

16
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
17
18
19

HELEN YUAN, et al.

20
21

No. C 13-04010 WHA

Plaintiffs,
v.

22

TIMOTHY LEWEY, et al,

23

Defendants.

24
25

ORDER GRANTING MOTION
TO STAY AND DENYING
MOTION TO REMAND
/
INTRODUCTION

26

In this pharmaceutical products-liability action, plaintiffs move to remand to state court

27

for lack of federal jurisdiction while defendants move to stay all proceedings pending potential

28

transfer to an MDL. For the reasons stated below, defendants’ motion to stay is GRANTED and
plaintiffs’ motion to remand is DENIED. The hearing on October 31, 2013, is VACATED.

1
2

STATEMENT
Plaintiffs filed a complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County

3

of San Francisco in August 2013 for alleged injuries from the ingestion of a prescription drug.

4

Plaintiffs sued defendants Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. (a New Jersey corporation) and McKesson

5

Corp. (a California-based pharmaceutical distributor). Defendant Bristol-Meyers Squibb

6

removed the action to federal court on fraudulent joinder grounds and now moves to stay this

7

action pending a conditional transfer to the Plavix® MDL in the United States District Court for

8

the District of New Jersey.

9

Our court of appeals has not yet addressed whether courts must first decide the merits of

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

ANALYSIS

a motion to remand before determining whether to stay the proceedings. In support of their

12

argument, plaintiffs cite to several non-binding decisions, including decisions from judges in this

13

district. Plaintiffs essentially argue that it has already been established that there is no federal

14

subject-matter jurisdiction in this case and that granting the motion to stay would therefore be an

15

inappropriate exercise of jurisdiction. See Caouette v. Bristol-Meyers Squibb Co., No. 12-1816,

16

2012 WL 3283858 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2012) (Judge Edward Chen) (granting motion to remand

17

under similar circumstances). At the time of that order, however, Plavix® cases had not yet been

18

transferred to the MDL.

19

On February 12, 2013, the JPML established a multidistrict Plavix® litigation in the

20

District of New Jersey, assigned to Judge Freda Wolfson. See In re Plavix Mktg., Sales

21

Practices & Prods. Liab. Litig. (No. II), MDL No. 2418, 923 F. Supp. 2d (J.P.M.L. 2013). Since

22

then, the JPML has conditionally transferred twenty-six actions in this district to the Plavix®

23

MDL. See Conditional Transfer Order No. 8, In re Plavix (No. II), MDL No. 2418, 2013 U.S.

24

Dist. LEXIS 89185 (J.P.M.L. 2013).

25

Since the establishment of the Plavix® MDL, both the undersigned judge and Judge

26

Chen have ordered a stay of proceedings in identical cases. Addison v. Bristol-Myers Squibb

27

Co., No. 13-2166, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87688 (N.D. Cal. June 21, 2013) (Judge William

28

Alsup); Kinney v. Bristol-Meyers Squibb Co., No. 12-4477 (N.D. Cal. April 12, 2013) (Judge
2

1

Edward Chen); Belinda v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., No. 12-5941 (N.D. Cal. Jan 22, 2013)

2

(Judge Yvonne Gonzales Rogers); Aiken v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., No. 12-5208, 2013 U.S.

3

Dist. LEXIS 35742 (N.D. Cal. March 14, 2013) (Judge Richard Seeborg).

4

One of the bases for defendant Bristol-Meyers Squibb’s removal of this action from state

preempted by federal law and are only included to defeat diversity. This jurisdictional issue will

7

likely be raised in every other action involving McKesson at the MDL. For efficiency and

8

consistency, that issue should be decided by the MDL. In fact, “courts in the Northern District . .

9

. have made clear that courts are not bound to preliminarily consider the merits of a remand

10

motion before considering a motion to stay.” Addison, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87688 at *3

11
For the Northern District of California

court is the alleged fraudulent joinder of McKesson; it argues that claims against McKesson are

6

United States District Court

5

(citations omitted). Plaintiffs will not be prejudiced by this brief stay pending the MDL’s

12

determination to transfer. If transferred, the MDL can efficiently deal with jurisdictional issues

13

such as fraudulent joinder; if not, then this Court can.

14
15
16

CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, defendant’s motion to stay the action pending transfer to the
MDL is GRANTED. The hearing on October 31, 2013, is VACATED.

17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19
20

Dated: October 28, 2013.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3