La Fountaine et al v. McKesson et al

Filing 23

ORDER by Judge Hamilton granting 14 Motion to Stay; denying 19 Motion to Remand (pjhlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/5/2014)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6
7

JAMES LA FOUNTAINE, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8
9

v.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
STAY AND VACATING HEARING

MCKESSON CORPORATION, et al.,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

No. C 13-5841 PJH

Defendants.
_______________________________/

12
13

Before the court is defendant’s 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 In re Avandia Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation,

16

MDL No. 1871, pending in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (“the Avandia® MDL”).

17

Having read the parties’ papers and carefully considered their arguments and the relevant

18

legal authority, the court hereby GRANTS the motion to stay.

19

Plaintiffs filed this action in the Superior Court of California, County of San

20

Francisco, on November 15, 2013. On December 17, 2013, defendant GlaxoSmithKline

21

LLC (“GSK”) removed the case to this court under the Class Action Fairness Act. GSK

22

also claims that defendant McKesson Corporation was fraudulently joined, giving the court

23

diversity jurisdiction over the action. Plaintiffs disagree, and filed a motion to remand on

24

January 14, 2014.

25

On December 19, 2013, GSK notified the JPML of the pendency of this tag-along

26

action awaiting transfer to the Avandia® MDL. On December 23, 2013, the JPML issued a

27

Conditional Transfer Order, conditionally transferring the action. On December 24, 2013,

28

GSK filed the present motion to stay pending transfer.

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

Rivers v. Walt Disney Co., 980 F.Supp. 1358, 1360-1 (C.D. Cal. 1997). Staying an action

6

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

7

Other courts, including the Northern District of California, have granted motions to

8

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

9

pending. See Flores v. McKesson Corp., No. 13-3153 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 2, 2013); Allen v.
McKesson Corp., No. 13-3110 (N.D. Cal. July 30, 2013); Hargrove v. McKesson Corp., No.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

would promote judicial economy because the cases raising common issues regarding

22

Avandia® would be consolidated for discovery and pretrial proceedings.

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28
2

1

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

2

considering the motion to remand.

3

In the event the JPML declines to transfer this action, plaintiffs may renew their

4

motion to remand in this court. Alternatively, if the JPML transfers the case, plaintiffs will

5

have the opportunity to present their motion to remand in the Avandia® MDL.

6

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the court finds that defendants’ motion to

7

stay must be GRANTED. The motion to remand is DENIED, without prejudice to renewal

8

in this court in the event the action is not transferred to the Avandia® MDL or in the

9

transferee court if it is transferred. The February 19, 2014 hearing date is VACATED.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
IT IS SO ORDERED.

12

Dated: February 5, 2014
______________________________
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge

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