Turner v. Boston Scientific Corporation et al

Filing 29

ORDER granting 25 motion to stay. The parties are to provide a status report on the pendency of Plaintiff's motion on Tuesday, July 25, 2017, and every ninety (90) days thereafter. Signed by Judge Roy B. Dalton, Jr. on 4/27/2017. (VMF)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION CAROLYN TURNER, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 6:17-cv-338-Orl-37DCI BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION; EMAI PLASTIC RAW MATERIAL CO., LTD.; PROXY BIOMEDICAL LIMITED; LUXILON INDUSTRIES NV; CAMBRIDGE POLYMER GROUP, INC.; and SHENZHEN YFL INTERNATIONAL LOGISTICS LIMITED, Defendants. _____________________________________ ORDER In the instant action, Plaintiff asserts various claims against Defendants regarding the procurement and sale of transvaginal mesh—a medical device designed to be permanently implanted into women’s bodies. (Doc. 1.) Due to the pendency of similar federal actions throughout the country, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“MDL Panel”) has transferred like-actions to the Southern District of West Virginia for consolidated pretrial proceedings. (Doc. 25-1 (“Consolidation Order”).) Notably, the Consolidation Order aims to “eliminate duplicative discovery[,] prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings[,] and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel[,] and the judiciary. (Id. at 3.) Pursuant to this goal, the MDL Panel recently issued an Order conditionally -1- transferring this action to the Southern District of West Virginia for coordinated pretrial proceedings in Multidistrict Litigation No. 2326. (Doc. 25-2 (“Conditional Transfer Order”).) According to Defendant Boston Scientific Corporation (“Boston Scientific”), Plaintiff has filed a notice opposing the Conditional Transfer Order, and her motion to vacate is due on May 2, 2017. (Doc. 25, p. 3 n.1.) As such, Boston Scientific moves to stay the instant action until the MDL Panel resolves the issues raised by Plaintiff’s forthcoming motion to vacate. (Doc. 25 (“Motion to Stay”).) Plaintiff does not oppose the Motion to Stay. (Doc. 27.) The Court’s authority to stay proceedings derives from the “power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Rambaran v. Park Square Enters., Inc., No. 6:08-cv-247-Orl-19GJK, 2008 WL 4371356, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 22, 2008) (quoting Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)). But “[w]hen a district court exercises its discretion to stay a case pending the resolution of related proceedings in another forum, the district court must [properly limit] the scope of the stay.” Ortega Trujillo v. Conover & Co. Commc’ns, 221 F.3d 1262, 1264 (11th Cir. 2000). Such stay must not be indefinite. See id. Upon consideration, the Court agrees that a limited stay would conserve judicial resources, prevent duplication of the litigants’ efforts, and streamline the resolution of this federal action. Importantly, the requested stay is sufficiently limited in scope, agreed -2- to by the parties, 1 and consistent with the rationale set forth in the MDL Panel’s Consolidation Order. Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. Defendant Bostic Scientific’s Time-Sensitive Motion to Stay All Proceedings Pending Resolution of Plaintiff’s Opposition to the JMPL’s Conditional Transfer Order to MDL No. 2326 (Doc. 25) is GRANTED. 2. This action is STAYED pending the MDL Panel’s decision on Plaintiff’s forthcoming motion to vacate. 3. The parties are DIRECTED to: a. Provide a status report on the pendency of Plaintiff’s motion on Tuesday, July 25, 2017, and every ninety (90) days thereafter; and b. Immediately notify the Court upon the MDL Panel’s resolution of Plaintiff’s motion to vacate the Conditional Transfer Order. 4. The Clerk is DIRECTED to terminate all pending motions and deadlines and administratively close the file. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Orlando, Florida, on April 27, 2017. 1 action. Plaintiff and Boston Scientific are the only parties that have appeared in this -3- Copies to: Counsel of Record -4-

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?