Stevens v. Organon USA, Inc. et al
Filing
21
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STAY AND DENYING MOTION TO REMAND AND VACATING HEARING by Judge William Alsup [granting 12 Motion to Stay; dismissing 16 Motion to Remand]. (whasec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/13/2014)
1
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
TAMMY L. STEVENS,
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
Plaintiff,
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
No. C 13-05713 WHA
v.
ORGANON USA INC., ORGANON
PHARMACEUTICAL USA INC., ORGANON
INTERNATIONAL INC., ORGANON
BIOSCIENCES NV, AKZO NOBEL NV,
SCHERING PLOUGH CORPORATION,
MERCK & COMPANY, INC., MCKESSON
CORPORATION and DOES 1 - 100,
ORDER GRANTING
MOTION TO STAY
AND DENYING MOTION
TO REMAND AND
VACATING HEARING
Defendants.
/
19
In this pharmaceutical products-liability action, defendants move to stay all proceedings
20
pending potential transfer to an MDL and plaintiff moves to remand back to state court. For the
21
reasons stated below, defendants’ motion to stay is GRANTED and plaintiff’s motion to remand
22
is DENIED. The hearing on January 23, 2014 is hereby VACATED.
23
Plaintiff filed a complaint on December 2013 in the San Francisco County Superior Court
24
for allegedly suffering severe and life threatening injuries from use of NuvaRing®, an implant
25
contraceptive. Among other out-of-state defendants, plaintiff sued McKesson Corporation, a
26
California-based pharmaceutical distributor. Following removal on the basis of fraudulent
27
joinder grounds, defendants filed the instant motion to stay all proceedings in this action pending
28
conditional transfer to the NuvaRing® MDL in the United States District Court for the Eastern
1
District of Missouri. In response, plaintiff filed a motion to remand, but failed to file a timely
2
opposition to defendants’ motion to stay.
3
Our court of appeals has not yet addressed whether courts must first decide the merits of
4
a motion to remand before determining whether to stay the proceedings. “Courts in the Northern
5
District[, however] . . . have made clear that courts are not bound to preliminarily consider the
6
merits of a remand motion before considering a motion to stay.” Addison v. Bristol-Myers
7
Squibb Co., No. 13-2166, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87688, at *3 (N.D. Cal. June 21, 2013)
8
(citations omitted).
identical NuvaRing® actions pending a potential transfer to the MDL. Buyak v. Organon, et al.,
11
For the Northern District of California
Judges in this district, including the undersigned judge, have stayed proceedings in
10
United States District Court
9
No. 13-03128, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115057, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 14, 2013); Gonzalez, et al.,
12
v. Organon, et al., No. 12-06161, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24686, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 22, 2013)
13
(Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton); Asche v. Organon, et al., No. 13-04986, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
14
170497, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 3, 2013) (Judge Claudia Wilken); Garza v. Organon, et al.,
15
No. 13-04988, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 172904, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2013) (Judge Richard
16
Seeborg); Tucker v. Organon, et al., No. 13-728, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72793, *5 (N.D. Cal.
17
May 22, 2013) (Judge Sandra Armstrong). The defendants in all of these actions all raise the
18
issue of fraudulent joinder. This jurisdictional issue will likely be raised in every other action
19
involving McKesson at the MDL. For judicial efficiency and consistency, that issue should be
20
decided by the MDL.
21
Plaintiff’s reliance on Marble v. Organon USA Inc., is misplaced. The Marble action
22
was remanded because "this is the first time . . . that any NuvaRing® plaintiffs have joined
23
McKesson or any other distributor as a defendant in NuvaRing® litigation,” thus “there is no
24
economy in sending this action to MDL for resolution.” Marble v. Organon USA Inc.,
25
No. 12-02212, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83520, at *8–10 (N.D. Cal. June 15, 2012). Not so today.
26
As shown above, several judges in this district alone have stayed identical actions pending
27
conditional transfer to the MDL because they all raise the same fraudulent joinder issue.
28
2
1
For the reasons stated above, defendants’ motion to stay the action pending transfer to the
2
MDL is GRANTED and plaintiff’s motion to remand is DENIED. The hearing on January 23,
3
2014 is hereby VACATED.
4
5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
6
7
Dated: January 13, 2014.
WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
8
9
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?