Asche et al v. Organon USA Inc et al

Filing 34

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken ORDER GRANTING 18 MOTION TO STAY; DENYING 19 MOTION TO REMAND WITHOUT PREJUDICE. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/3/2013)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

ANN ASCHE, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

5

8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

ORDER GRANTING
MOTION TO STAY;
DENYING MOTION TO
REMAND WITHOUT
PREJUDICE (Docket
Nos. 18, 19)

v.

6
7

No. C 13-4986 CW

ORGANON USA INC., ORGANON
PHARMACEUTICALS USA INC.,
ORGANON INTERNATIONAL INC.,
ORGANON BIOSCIENCES NV, AKZO
NOBEL NV, SCHERING PLOUGH
CORPORATION, MERCK & COMPANY,
INC., MCKESSON CORPORATION,
Defendants.
________________________________/

12
On November 5, 2013, Defendants Organon USA Inc., Organon
13
Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. LLC, Organon International Inc., and
14
Merck & Co., Inc. moved to stay this action pending a decision by
15
the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) to transfer
16
this case.

Plaintiffs oppose the stay, arguing that the stay

17
would delay the Court’s ruling on their motion to remand.

Because

18
this case will likely be transferred to the Eastern District of
19
Missouri, where multidistrict litigation (MDL) involving
20
Defendants is currently pending, the Court grants the motion to
21
stay.
22
DISCUSSION
23
“When evaluating a motion to stay proceedings pending a
24
transfer to a MDL court, a primary factor to consider is the
25
preservation of judicial resources.

Staying an action pending

26
transfer can help prevent duplicative litigation and inconsistent
27
rulings.”
28

Couture v. Hoffman-La Roche, Inc., 2012 WL 3042994, at

1

*2 (N.D. Cal.) (citing Rivers v. Walt Disney Co., 980 F. Supp.

2

1358, 1360-61 (C.D. Cal. 1997)).

3

Here, judicial economy favors a stay.

Several cases have

4

been filed in this district raising the same jurisdictional and

5

factual issues as the present action.

6

transferred to the MDL court.

7

duplicative litigation and prevent inconsistent rulings on common

8

questions that the MDL court is likely to address.

9

Many of these cases were

A stay will therefore avoid

Plaintiffs argue that the Court must decide their motion to

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

remand before considering Defendants’ motion to stay.

11

the “Ninth Circuit has not expressly adopted this approach” and

12

courts in this district often take a different course.

13

Fresh Del Monte Produce, Inc., 325 F. Supp. 2d 1049, 1053 (N.D.

14

Cal. 2004); see also Freitas v. McKesson Corp., 2012 WL 161211

15

(N.D. Cal.) (“[O]ther courts in the Northern District, including

16

this one, have made clear that courts are not bound to

17

preliminarily consider the merits of a remand motion before

18

considering a motion to stay.”).

19

motions to stay in other cases involving the same claims and

20

Defendants as the present case, despite the fact that the

21

plaintiffs in those cases had filed motions to remand.

22

Organon USA Inc., 2013 WL 3475948, at *2 (N.D. Cal.); Wilson, et

23

al. v. Organon USA, Inc., et al., Case No. 13-0705, Docket No. 16.

24

Other courts in this district have taken the same approach in

25

nearly identical cases.

26

2013 WL 1963954 (N.D. Cal.) (“Since the question whether McKesson

27

is a proper defendant in the NuvaRing® cases is now before the

28

MDL, the court finds that judicial economy would be better served

However,

Conroy v.

Indeed, this Court has granted

Clarke v.

See, e.g., Burton v. Organon USA Inc.,

2

1

by staying this case pending the transfer, rather than by

2

considering the motion to remand.”); Tucker v. Organon USA, Inc.,

3

2013 WL 2255884 (N.D. Cal.) (“Permitting [the MDL court] to

4

resolve the issue of fraudulent joinder globally, as opposed to

5

adjudicating the issue prior to transfer, promotes judicial

6

consistency and avoids conflicting judgments.”).1

7

Plaintiffs’ pending motion to remand does not preclude the Court

8

from granting a stay.

9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Accordingly,

CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, Defendants’ motion to stay

11

(Docket No. 18) is GRANTED.

12

No. 19) is DENIED without prejudice.

13

Plaintiffs’ motion to remand (Docket

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
15

Dated:

16

12/3/2013

CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
1

24
25
26
27
28

Plaintiffs cite only one case from this district in which a court
reached a different conclusion when “presented with this identical
issue.” Docket No. 27, Opp. Stay, at 2 n.2 (citing Marble v. Organon
USA, Inc., 2012 WL 2237271 (N.D. Cal.) (Alsup, J.) (denying motion to
stay and granting remand)). Plaintiffs fail to note, however, that the
judge who decided that case subsequently reversed his position in
another case after recognizing that several actions involving the same
claims and defendants had been transferred to the MDL court. See Buyak
v. Organon USA Inc., Case No. 13-3128-WHA, Docket No. 22, Order Granting
Mot. Stay, at 2 (“Circumstances have since changed.”).

3