Evans et al v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company et al

Filing 14

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. Granting 11 Motion to Stay. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/18/2018)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
KIMBERLY EVANS, et al.,

7

Plaintiffs,

8

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
STAY

v.

9

BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY,
et al.,

10
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No.18-cv-02614-HSG

Re: Dkt. No. 11

Defendants.

12
13

Defendant Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. (“Bristol-Meyers”) removed this action from

14

Alameda County Superior Court on May 3, 2018. Dkt. No. 1.1 On May 7, 2018, the United States

15

Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“the MDL Panel”) filed a conditional transfer order

16

transferring this case to In re Abilify (Aripiparzole) Products Liability Litigation (“the Abilify

17

MDL”). MDL No. 2734, Dkt. No. 158. Plaintiffs filed a notice of opposition to the conditional

18

transfer order on May 10, 2018. MDL No. 2734, Dkt. No. 161. The MDL Panel subsequently set

19

a briefing schedule for Plaintiffs to file a motion to vacate the conditional transfer order. MDL

20

No. 2734, Dkt. No. 174. On May 16, 2018, Bristol-Myers filed a motion to stay all proceedings in

21

this action pending transfer to the Abilify MDL. See Dkt. No. 11. Plaintiffs filed a motion to

22

remand on May 17, 2018. Dkt. No. 13.
“[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to

23
24

control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for

25

counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). In order to issue a

26

stay, courts consider: (1) “the possible damage which may result from the granting of a stay,” (2)

27
28

1

All docket references are to this case unless otherwise indicated.

1

“the hardship or inequity which a party may suffer in being required to go forward,” and (3) “the

2

orderly course of justice measured in terms of the simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and

3

questions of law which could be expected to result from a stay.” CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d

4

265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962) (citing Landis, 299 U.S. at 254-55). Whether to stay an action is a matter

5

entrusted to the discretion of the district court. See Landis, 299 U.S. at 254 (“How this can best be

6

done calls for the exercise of judgment, which must weigh competing interests and maintain an

7

even balance.”).

8
9

The Court finds in its discretion that both party and judicial resources will be most
efficiently used if these cases are stayed until the MDL Panel decides whether to vacate the
conditional transfer order. Deference to the MDL Panel allows for the uniformity, consistency,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

and predictability in litigation that underlies the MDL system. See 28 U.S.C. § 1407. Moreover,

12

the stay will be of limited duration. It is therefore unlikely that any damage will result from the

13

granting of the stay.

14
15

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Bristol-Myers’ motion to stay proceedings in this action
until the MDL Panel resolves Plaintiffs’ motion to vacate the conditional transfer order.

16

The case management conference set for May 29, 2018 at 2:00 p.m. is VACATED.

17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18

Dated: 5/18/2018

19
20
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2