Boreni et al v. McKesson Corporation et al

Filing 18

ORDER by Judge Hamilton granting 12 Motion to Stay (pjhlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/13/2013)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 9 PATRICIA BORENI, et al., 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 Plaintiffs, v. 12 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STAY AND VACATING HEARING MCKESSON CORPORATION, et al., 13 No. C 13-3152 PJH Defendants. _______________________________/ 14 15 Before the court is defendant’s motion to stay the above-entitled action pending the 16 determination by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML”) regarding the transfer 17 of this case to MDL 1871 in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (“the Avandia® MDL”). 18 Having read the parties’ papers and carefully considered their arguments and the relevant 19 legal authority, the court hereby GRANTS the motion to stay. The court VACATES the 20 hearing scheduled for September 4, 2013. In light of this ruling, the court also VACATES 21 the hearing on plaintiffs’ motion to remand, scheduled for September 11, 2013, which the 22 court shall reschedule if necessary. 23 Plaintiffs filed this action in the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco 24 on June 26, 2013. On July 9, 2013, defendant GlaxoSmithKline LLC (“GSK”) removed the 25 case to this court under the Class Action Fairness Act. GSK also claims that defendant 26 McKesson Corporation was fraudulently joined, giving the court diversity jurisdiction over 27 the action. Plaintiffs disagree, and filed a motion to remand on August 1, 2013. 28 On July 16, 2013, GSK notified the JPML of a number of tag-along actions, including 1 this matter, awaiting transfer to the Avandia® MDL. On July 18, 2013, the JPML issued 2 Conditional Transfer Order 174, conditionally transferring the tag-along actions, including 3 this matter. On July 19, 2013, GSK filed the present motion to stay pending transfer. On 4 July 24, 2013, plaintiff filed a notice of opposition to CTO 174. 5 The JPML has the authority to transfer “civil actions involving one or more common 6 questions of fact [which] are pending in different districts . . . to any district for coordinated 7 or consolidated pretrial proceedings.” 28 U.S.C. § 1407(a). When evaluating a motion to 8 stay, a primary factor the court should consider is the preservation of judicial resources. 9 Rivers v. Walt Disney Co., 980 F.Supp. 1358, 1360-61 (C.D. Cal. 1997). Staying an action 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 pending transfer can help prevent duplicative litigation and inconsistent rulings. Id. Other courts, including the Northern District of California, have granted motions to 12 stay in order to preserve judicial resources, even where motions to remand are also 13 pending. See Flores v. McKesson Corp., No. 13-3153 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 2, 2013); Allen v. 14 McKesson Corp., No. 13-3110 (N.D. Cal. July 30, 2013); Hargrove v. McKesson Corp., No. 15 13-3114 (N.D. Cal. July 30, 2013); Poff v. McKesson Corp., No. 13-3115 (N.D. Cal. July 30, 16 2013); Summa v. McKesson Corp., No. 13-3097 (N.D. Cal. July 30, 2013); Aud v. 17 McKesson Corp., No. 13-3111 (N.D. Cal. July 29, 2013); Adams v. McKesson Corp., No. 18 13-3102 (N.D. Cal. July 25, 2013); Alvarez v. McKesson Corp., No. 13-3112 (N.D. Cal. July 19 24, 2013); Dadus v. McKesson Corp., No. 13-3069 (N.D. Cal. July 24, 2013); Allender v. 20 McKesson Corp., No. 13-3068 (N.D. Cal. July 22, 2013); Ortiz v. McKesson Corp., No. 13- 21 3159 (N.D. Cal. July 17, 2013); Albayrak v. McKesson Corp., No. 13-3095 (N.D. Cal. July 22 15, 2013); Esche v. McKesson Corp., No. 13-3062 (N.D. Cal. July 15, 2013). 23 There is nothing that precludes the MDL court from considering the jurisdictional 24 issues after the transfer. Here, staying the case and the eventual transfer of the case 25 would promote judicial economy because the cases raising common issues regarding 26 Avandia® would be consolidated for discovery and pretrial proceedings. 27 28 The question of whether McKesson is a proper defendant in the Avandia® cases should be decided by one court, to avoid any risk of inconsistency in judicial rulings. All of 2 1 the above-cited McKesson cases involve the same jurisdictional issues, and all have been 2 stayed pending transfer to the MDL. Thus, the question of whether McKesson is a proper 3 defendant in the Avandia® cases is already before the MDL, so the court finds that judicial 4 economy would be better served by staying this case pending the transfer, rather than by 5 considering the motion to remand. 6 Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the court finds that defendants’ motion to 7 stay must be GRANTED. The September 4, 2013 and September 11, 2013 hearing dates 8 are VACATED. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 Dated: August 13, 2013 ______________________________ PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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?