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)

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