Little et al v. Pfizer Inc.
Filing
34
ORDER by Judge Edward M. Chen Granting 18 Defendant Pfizer, Inc.'s Motion to Stay; and Denying 24 Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/18/2014)
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
LORETTA LITTLE, et al.,
9
Plaintiffs
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT
PFIZER, INC.’S MOTION TO STAY;
AND DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION
TO REMAND
v.
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
No. C-14-1177 EMC
PFIZER, INC., et al.,
12
Defendants.
___________________________________/
(Docket Nos. 18, 24)
13
14
15
I.
INTRODUCTION
16
Pending before the Court is Defendant Pfizer Inc.’s motion to stay these proceedings and
17
Plaintiffs’ motion to remand the instant action to California superior court. The Court finds this
18
matter suitable for disposition without a hearing and thus VACATES the hearing on the motions set
19
for April 24, 2014. For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to stay and
20
DENIES, without prejudice, Plaintiffs’ motion to remand.
21
II.
FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
22
On February 21, 2014, Plaintiff Loretta Little and her co-Plaintiffs filed the instant action in
23
the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda. Compl. (Docket No. 1-2).
24
Plaintiffs allege that they ingested the drug Lipitor – a pharmaceutical manufactured by Defendant
25
Pfizer and distributed by Defendant McKesson Corporation (“McKesson”). Id. ¶ 69. Lipitor is
26
prescribed to reduce the amount of cholesterol and other fatty substances in the blood and thus to
27
help reduce the risk of developing heart disease. Id. ¶¶ 70, 85.
28
1
Plaintiffs allege that Lipitor use is “causally related to the development of type 2 diabetes
2
and/or blood glucose level diagnostic for type 2 diabetes.” Id. ¶ 72. In February 2012, Pfizer added
3
the following language to Lipitor’s label: “Increases in HbAlc and fasting serum glucose levels have
4
been reported with HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors, including LIPITOR.” Id. ¶ 74. Nonetheless,
5
Plaintiffs allege that even with this change, Pfizer continues to clearly warn consumers of the serious
6
risk of developing type 2 diabetes as a result of using Lipitor. Id. ¶ 75. Plaintiffs allege that as a
7
result of their use of Lipitor, they were diagnosed with type 2 diabetes. Id. ¶ 87. Accordingly, “for
8
the rest of their lives they must undergo regular testing of their blood glucose levels, adhere to a
9
restrictive diabetic diet, and take medication to control their diabetes” as well as having a “markedly
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
increased risk of heart disease, blindness, neuropathy, and kidney disease.” Id.
Plaintiffs allege six causes of action: (1) Strict liability; (2) negligence; (3) breach of express
warranty; (4) breach of implied warranty; (5) fraud; and (6) fraudulent concealment.
13
On March 13, 2014, Pfizer removed this action to this Court. Docket No. 1. Pfizer asserts
14
that jurisdiction is appropriate under the “mass action” provision of the Class Action Fairness Act
15
(“CAFA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(11), as well traditional diversity jurisdiction. In the Notice of
16
Removal, Pfizer asserted that McKesson’s citizenship should be disregarded as Pfizer alleges it was
17
fraudulently joined in this action. Docket No. 1, at 26.
18
This action is one of many involving the alleged Lipitor / type 2 diabetes connection. In the
19
federal court system, these actions have generally been transferred to the District of South Carolina
20
pursuant to the multidistrict litigation statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1407. See In re Lipitor (Atorvastatin
21
Calcium) Marketing, Sales Practices & Products Liability Litigation (No. II),. MDL. No. 2502. On
22
March 18, 2014, Pfizer filed before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML”) a Notice
23
of Potential Tag-Along Actions which included the instant action. See In re Lipitor, MDL No. 2502,
24
Docket No. 165. On March 25, 2014, the JPML issued a conditional transfer order transferring this
25
action, among others, to the District of South Carolina. See In re Lipitor, MDL No. 2502, Docket
26
No. 183. Plaintiffs’ counsel has filed an opposition to this conditional transfer order, and the Panel
27
has set a briefing schedule on this issue and set a hearing for May 29, 2014. See In Re Lipitor, MDL
28
No. 2502, Docket Nos. 252, 309.
2
1
Pfizer has moved to stay the instant action on first ground. First, Pfizer argues that the
2
jurisdictional and substantive issues in this case “likely will also be presented to the Lipitor MDL
3
court” and that his Court should “stay proceedings . . . pending MDL transfer to avoid prejudice and
4
to achieve the judicial economies that underlie the MDL statute.” Docket No. 18, at 2. Second,
5
Pfizer argues that the Court should stay proceedings pending the Ninth Circuit’s en banc
6
proceedings in Romo v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., 9th Cir. No. 13-56310. Plaintiffs’ on the
7
other hand, has moved to remand the instant action, alleging that there is no federal jurisdiction
8
under § 1332 because (1) McKesson was not fraudulently joined in this action, and (2) the “mass
9
action” provision of CAFA are inapplicable.
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
III.
DISCUSSION
Federal courts have the inherent power to issue stays in civil proceedings. See Favaloro v.
12
S/S/ Golden Gate, 687 F. Supp. 475, 481 (N.D. Cal. 1987). In determining whether to stay
13
proceedings pending a JPML transfer, courts evaluate factors such as: “‘(1) potential prejudice to the
14
non-moving party; (2) hardship and inequity to the moving party if the action is not stayed; and (3)
15
the judicial resources that would be saved by avoiding duplicative litigation if the cases are in fact
16
consolidated.’” Jones v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., No. C 13-2415 PJH, 2013 WL 3388659, at *2
17
(N.D. Cal. July 8, 2013) (quoting Rivers v. Walt Disney Co., 980 F. Supp. 1358, 1360 (C.D. Cal.
18
1997)). Where a motion to remand and motion to stay are pending, courts have held that “deference
19
to the MDL court for resolution of a motion to remand often provides the opportunity for the
20
uniformity, consistency, and predictability in litigation that underlies the MDL system.” Rifenberry
21
v. Organon USA, Inc., No. 13-cv-05463-JST, 2014 WL 296955, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 26, 2014).
22
The Court concludes that these factors weigh in favor of staying the instant action pending
23
the JPML’s decision on whether to transfer this action to the MDL court. Plaintiffs’ motion to
24
remand raises the question of (1) whether cases coordinated pursuant to California Code of Civil
25
Procedure section 404.1 may be deemed “mass actions” under CAFA and (2) whether
26
pharmaceutical distributors like McKesson should be deemed fraudulently joined under California
27
law in such cases. See generally Docket No. 24-1. Identical arguments, however, are present in a
28
substantial number of cases also subject to the MDL Court’s conditional transfer order. See, e.g.,
3
1
Peters v. Pfizer Inc. et al., No. 14-cv-01196, Docket No. 13 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2014); Davis v.
2
Pfizer, No. 14-cv–01204, Docket No. 15 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2014); Alanis v. Pfizer, Inc., No. 14-cv-
3
00365, Docket No. 8 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 25, 2014). It thus appears likely that the MDL Court will be
4
called upon to adjudicate the same jurisdictional questions posed in this case. Accordingly, staying
5
this action promotes judicial efficiency, avoids duplicative litigation, and avoids the risk of
6
inconsistent results. See Walker v. Merck & Co., Inc., No. 05-CV-360-DRH, 2005 WL 1565839, at
7
*2 (S.D. Ill. June 22, 2005) (finding judicial economy supported stay where “it is almost certain that
8
the transferee court will hear and decide many of the same issues Plaintiffs ask this Court to tackle
9
in ruling on their motion to remand”); see also In re Vioxx Products Liability Litig., 360 F. Supp. 2d
13652 (J.P.M.L. 2005) (“Centralization under Section 1407 is necessary in order to eliminate
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
duplicative discovery, avoid inconsistent pretrial rulings, and conserve the resources of the parties,
12
their counsel and the judiciary.”). There is nothing unique about this case to warrant an exception to
13
the stay.
14
Further, the Court finds that staying this action will not result in undue prejudice to
15
Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs argue that they will be prejudiced by the stay as it will result in a “delay in
16
having their remand motion heard by the MDL court.” Docket No. 26, at 4. Plaintiffs therefore
17
argue that the Court should remand this action to state court without a stay. Plaintiffs are correct
18
that their motion to remand will likely be delayed as a result of the stay and any MDL transfer, such
19
delay does not constitute prejudice sufficient to outweigh the efficiency gains of staying this action.
20
See J.W. v. Pfizer, Inc., No. 13-CV-00318-YGR, 2013 WL 1402962 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 5, 2013)
21
(“Plaintiffs claim that their case will ‘languish in federal court,’ and their jurisdiction question will
22
not be considered for several months. However, Plaintiffs offer no tangible harm that they would
23
suffer from waiting a term of months.” (citation omitted)); see also Walker, 2005 WL 1565839, at
24
*2 (“[W]hile Plaintiffs might well be subjected to some delay as a result of the issuance of a stay,
25
that prejudice does not outweigh the judicial economy interests.”).
26
Finally, Plaintiffs argue that this Court should rule on their motion to remand prior to
27
resolving the motion to stay because “removal was improper.” However, courts have repeatedly
28
noted that the “general rule is for federal courts to defer ruling on pending motions to remand in
4
1
MDL litigation until after the [JPML] has transferred the case.” Robinson v. DePuy Orthopaedics,
2
Inc., No. 3:12-cv-00003, 2012 WL 831650 (W.D. Va. Mar. 6, 2012). The Court notes that other
3
courts in this district have followed this general rule. See, e.g., Peters v. Pfizer Inc. et al., No. 14-
4
cv-01196, Docket No. 21 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2014); Rouda v. Pfizer, No. 14-cv-1195-JST, Docket
5
No. 29 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 14, 2014).1
6
7
IV.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Pfizer’s motion to stay is GRANTED. Plaintiffs’ motion to
8
remand is DENIED without prejudice to Plaintiffs renewing the motion either before this Court
9
(should the JPML not transfer the instant action) or before the MDL Court.
This order disposes of Docket Nos. 18 and 24.
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
IT IS SO ORDERED.
13
14
Dated: April 18, 2014
15
_________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
1
27
28
Plaintiffs also argue that transfer is improper because 28 U.S.C. § 1404, a case may only be
transferred to another district where the case could have originally been brought. However, this
argument fails for the simple fact that transfer to an MDL Court is governed by a separate statute
that does not include the § 1404’s limitation – 28 U.SC. § 1407.
5
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?