Zavala v. McKesson Corporation et al

Filing 18

ORDER by Judge Hamilton granting 13 Motion to Stay and Vacating Hearing Dates (pjhlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/12/2013)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8
9

MANUEL ZAVALA, JR., 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 13-3163 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 27, 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 9, 2013, GSK notified the JPML of a number of “tag-along” actions awaiting

1

transfer to the Avandia® MDL. On July 16, 2013, GSK provided notice to the JPML of the

2

pendency of this “tag-along” action. On July 19, 2013, GSK filed the present motion to stay

3

pending transfer.

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

pending transfer can help prevent duplicative litigation and inconsistent rulings. Id.
Other courts, including the Northern District of California, have granted motions to

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

stay in order to preserve judicial resources, even where motions to remand are also

12

pending. See Flores v. McKesson Corp., No. 13-3153 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 2, 2013); Allen v.

13

McKesson Corp., No. 13-3110 (N.D. Cal. July 30, 2013); Hargrove v. McKesson Corp., No.

14

13-3114 (N.D. Cal. July 30, 2013); Poff v. McKesson Corp., No. 13-3115 (N.D. Cal. July 30,

15

2013); Summa v. McKesson Corp., No. 13-3097 (N.D. Cal. July 30, 2013); Aud v.

16

McKesson Corp., No. 13-3111 (N.D. Cal. July 29, 2013); Adams v. McKesson Corp., No.

17

13-3102 (N.D. Cal. July 25, 2013); Alvarez v. McKesson Corp., No. 13-3112 (N.D. Cal. July

18

24, 2013); Dadus v. McKesson Corp., No. 13-3069 (N.D. Cal. July 24, 2013); Allender v.

19

McKesson Corp., No. 13-3068 (N.D. Cal. July 22, 2013); Ortiz v. McKesson Corp., No. 13-

20

3159 (N.D. Cal. July 17, 2013); Albayrak v. McKesson Corp., No. 13-3095 (N.D. Cal. July

21

15, 2013); Esche v. McKesson Corp., No. 13-3062 (N.D. Cal. July 15, 2013).

22

There is nothing that precludes the MDL court from considering the jurisdictional

23

issues after the transfer. Here, staying the case and the eventual transfer of the case

24

would promote judicial economy because the cases raising common issues regarding

25

Avandia® would be consolidated for discovery and pretrial proceedings.

26

The question of whether McKesson is a proper defendant in the Avandia® cases

27

should be decided by one court, to avoid any risk of inconsistency in judicial rulings. All of

28

the above-cited McKesson cases involve the same jurisdictional issues, and all have been
2

1

stayed pending transfer to the MDL. Thus, the question of whether McKesson is a proper

2

defendant in the Avandia® cases is already before the MDL, so the court finds that judicial

3

economy would be better served by staying this case pending the transfer, rather than by

4

considering the motion to remand.

5
6

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the court finds that defendants’ motion to
stay must be GRANTED. The September 4 and 11, 2013 hearing dates are VACATED.

7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9

Dated: August 12, 2013
______________________________
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3