Little et al v. Pfizer Inc.

Filing 131

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Show Cause Response due by 6/28/2017. Plaintiffs may file their Response (to Defendant Pfizer's filing) by 7/12/2017. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 6/7/2017. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/7/2017)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 LORETTA LITTLE, et al., Plaintiffs, 8 9 10 v. PFIZER INC, et al., Defendants. RELATED TO Case No. Case No. Case No. Case No. 14-cv-01195-EMC 14-cv-01196-EMC 14-cv-01204-EMC 14-cv-01488-EMC 12 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 11 Case No. 14-cv-01177-EMC ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 13 Docket No. 129 14 15 Previously, the parties in the above-referenced case stipulated to a stay of proceedings 16 pending a decision by Judge Carney of the Central District of California in multiple cases pending 17 before him. In those cases, Judge Carney was presented with the issue of whether there is subject 18 matter jurisdiction pursuant to CAFA’s mass action provision. That same issue is present in the 19 instant action. 20 Plaintiffs have now notified the Court that Judge Carney has issued his decision. See 21 Docket No. 129 (notice) (referencing order issued on May 23, 2017). More specifically, Judge 22 Carney has concluded that subject matter jurisdiction is lacking and therefore granted the motion 23 to remand back to state court. See Docket No. 129-1 (Order at 16) (holding that fewer “than 100 24 plaintiffs have proposed that their cases be tried jointly” and so “the Court does not have 25 jurisdiction under CAFA’s mass action provision and all Lipitor cases presently before this Court 26 must be remanded to state court”). Plaintiffs have further notified the Court that, after Judge 27 Carney issued his opinion, Pfizer moved to stay his order pending appeal to the Ninth Circuit. 28 Judge Carney denied Pfizer’s motion on May 31, 2017. See Docket No. 129-2 (order). In response to Plaintiffs’ notice, Pfizer has filed a statement with the Court, in which it 1 2 asks the Court to “defer resolution of any motion to remand pending the Ninth Circuit’s review of 3 Pfizer’s appeal.” Docket No. 130 (Resp. at 1). Pfizer points out that, under 28 U.S.C. § 1453, if 4 the Ninth Circuit were to accept Pfizer’s appeal, it would have to “complete all action on such 5 appeal, including rendering judgment, not later than 60 days after the date on which such appeal 6 was filed, unless an extension is granted . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 1453(c)(2); see also id. § 1453(d)(3) 7 (providing that an extension may be granted if all parties agree to an extension “for any period of 8 time” or if good cause is shown for an extension and in the interests of justice “for a period not to 9 exceed 10 days”). If the Court “declines to defer ruling on remand pending appeal,” Pfizer asks the Court to “enter a briefing schedule on Plaintiffs’ motion to remand.” Docket No. 130 (Resp. at 11 1-2). 12 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 The Court is not persuaded by Pfizer’s contention that there should, in effect, be a stay 13 pending appeal. Judge Carney explained in his second order why he would not issue a stay 14 pending. Pfizer has not addressed any of Judge Carney’s reasons and rests solely on the timing 15 provided for by § 1453. 16 The Court therefore shall order a briefing schedule on the remand issue, which is the 17 alternative relief requested, in effect, by both parties. More specifically, the Court hereby orders 18 Pfizer to show cause as to why the Court should not remand the pending action (as well as the 19 related cases, see Nos. C-14-1488 EMC, C-14-1195 EMC, C-14-1196 EMC, C-14-1204 EMC). 20 Pfizer’s response to this order to show cause shall be filed within three weeks of the date of 21 this order. Plaintiffs may file a response to Pfizer’s filing within five weeks of the date of this 22 order. If necessary, the Court shall thereafter set a hearing on the order to show cause. 23 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 26 27 28 Dated: June 7, 2017 ______________________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN United States District Judge 2

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?