Flourney et al v. Organon USA, Inc. et al

Filing 30

Order by Hon. Samuel Conti granting 16 Motion to Stay.(sclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/21/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

Northern District of California

United States District Court

LESLIE FLOURNEY, et al.,
10
Plaintiffs,

11
12

v.

13

ORGANON USA, INC., et al.,

14

Defendants.

15
16

) Case No. 14-cv-00037-SC
)
) ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
) STAY
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiffs bring this product liability action in connection

17

with NuvaRing, a contraceptive device allegedly manufactured and

18

marketed by Defendants.

19

state court, but Defendants removed on diversity grounds, claiming

20

that Defendant McKesson Corporation, a California citizen, was

21

fraudulently joined.

22

pending a decision by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict

23

Litigation ("JPML") as to whether the case should be transferred to

24

a multidistrict litigation ("MDL") proceeding established in the

25

Eastern District of Missouri, captioned In Re NuvaRing Products

26

Liability Litigation, MDL 1964.

27

1

28

Plaintiffs initially filed this action in

Defendants now move to stay this action

The motion is fully briefed.
("Reply").

ECF No. 16 ("MTS"). 1

Also pending

ECF Nos. 17 ("Opp'n"), 25

1

before the Court is Plaintiffs' motion to remand.

2

Plaintiffs argue that the Court should consider their motion to

3

remand prior to adjudicating Defendants' motion to stay.

4

ECF No. 21.

Out of deference to the MDL process and the uniformity and

5

predictability it promotes, the Court declines to decide

6

Plaintiffs' motion to remand at this time.

7

also capable of adjudicating Plaintiffs' motion to remand.

8

Further, as the issues presented in Plaintiffs' motion have been

9

raised in a number of similar cases that may be transferred, the

The NuvaRing MDL is

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

10

NuvaRing MDL is in the best position to ensure the consistent

11

resolution of those issues.

12

and remand, a number of judges in this District have already stayed

13

similar actions pending transfer to the NuvaRing MDL.

14

ECF No. 16-2 ("Boranian Decl.") Exs. A (Aug. 14, 2013 Order by

15

Judge Alsup in Asche v. Organon, Case No. C 13-4986), B (Dec. 3,

16

2013 Order by Judge Wilken in Buyak v. Organon, Case No. C 13-

17

03128-WHA); Burton v. Organon, Case No. 13-1535, 2013 WL 1963954

18

(N.D. Cal. May 10, 2013) (Judge Hamilton).

19

Faced with competing motions to stay

See, e.g.,

The Court finds that staying this case is warranted because

20

(1) potential prejudice to Plaintiffs is minimal, given how soon

21

the JPML's decision is likely to issue; (2) not staying the matter

22

could expose Defendants to needless litigation and inconsistent

23

rulings in their pending cases; and (3) not staying the case would

24

waste judicial resources, since these cases may be consolidated in

25

the NuvaRing MDL.

26

cv-2657 PJH, 2012 WL 3042994 (N.D. Cal. July 25, 2012) (listing

27

factors to be considered in issuing a stay); see also Landis v. N.

28

Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936) (the court's power to stay cases

See Couture v. Hoffman-La Roche, Inc., No. 12-

2

1

is inherent in its ability to control disposition of cases on its

2

docket).

3

Accordingly, the Court STAYS this matter pending the JPML's

4

decision on whether the case should be transferred.

The parties

5

are ORDERED to file a joint notice with the Court within seven (7)

6

days of the JPML's decision.

7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

10

February 21, 2014

11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

3