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

Filing 25

ORDER by Judge Hamilton granting 14 Motion to Stay; terminating 16 Motion to Remand (pjhlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/22/2013)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6
7

MIRNA GONZALEZ, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8
9

v.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO STAY

ORGANON USA, et al.,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

No. C 12-6161 PJH

Defendants.
_____________________________/

12
13

Before the court is defendants’ motion to stay the above-entitled action pending the

14

determination by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML”) regarding the transfer

15

of this case to MDL 1964 in the Eastern District of Missouri. Plaintiffs oppose the motion,

16

and argue that the case should be remanded to the Superior Court of California, County of

17

San Francisco, where it was originally filed. Having read the parties’ papers and carefully

18

considered their arguments and the relevant legal authority, the court hereby GRANTS the

19

motion to stay.

20

The JPML has the authority to transfer “civil actions involving one or more common

21

questions of fact [which] are pending in different districts . . . to any district for coordinated

22

or consolidated pretrial proceedings.” 28 U.S.C. § 1407(a). When evaluating a motion to

23

stay, a primary factor the court should consider is the preservation of judicial resources.

24

Rivers v. Walt Disney Co., 980 F.Supp. 1358, 1360-61 (C.D. Cal. 1997). Staying an action

25

pending transfer can help prevent duplicative litigation and inconsistent rulings. Id. Other

26

courts, including courts within the Northern District, have granted motions to stay in order to

27

preserve judicial resources, even where motions to remand are also pending. See Freitas

28

v. McKesson Corp., 2012 WL 161211 (N.D. Cal. Jan.10, 2012); Nichols v. DePuy

1

Orthopaedics, Inc., 2011 WL 5335619 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 2, 2011); McCrerey v. Merck & Co.,

2

2005 WL 6124182 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 3, 2005).

3

Contrary to what plaintiffs suggest, there is no rule that the district court must first

4

consider the jurisdictional issues raised in a motion to remand, and there is nothing to

5

preclude the MDL court from considering the jurisdictional issues after the transfer. Here,

6

staying the case and the eventual transfer of the case would promote judicial economy

7

because the cases raising the same issues regarding NuvaRing® would be consolidated

8

for discovery and pretrial proceedings.

9

The question whether McKesson Corporation is a proper defendant in the
NuvaRing® cases should be decided by one court, because the result otherwise would be

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

potential inconsistency in judicial rulings. Since at least one case from this district in which

12

McKesson is a defendant has been transferred to the MDL, and since at least four cases

13

from the Central District of California in which McKesson is a defendant have been stayed

14

pending the transfer decision by the JPML, the court finds that judicial economy would be

15

better served by staying this case as well.

16

Moreover, Mirna Gonzalez, the sole California resident alleged in the complaint

17

herein to have been injured, is joined as one of seven plaintiffs in one of the NuvaRing®

18

cases filed in the Central District of California. In Burgueno v. Organon, C13-10883 (C.D.

19

Cal.), which was ordered related to four other NuvaRing® cases pending in that district, the

20

court granted defendants’ motion to stay pending transfer to the MDL. All five cases name

21

McKesson as a defendant.

22
23

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the court finds that defendants’ motion to
stay must be GRANTED. The February 27, 2013 hearing date is VACATED.

24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.

26

Dated: February 22, 2013
______________________________
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge

27
28
2