Collins et al v. Janssen Research & Development LLC et al

Filing 7

ORDER: The Clerk is directed to STAY AND ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE this case until such time as the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has ruled as to whether this case will be transferred to the consolidated multidistrict litigation. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 12/19/2017. (KAK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
ALVIN COLLINS, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No. 8:17-cv-3024-T-33AAS

JANSSEN RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT,
LLC, ET AL.,
Defendants.
________________________________/
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court pursuant to the Notice
of Removal filed on December 15, 2017, by Defendants Janssen
Research & Development, LLC, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
Janssen Ortho LLC, Johnson & Johnson, and Bayer Healthcare
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Doc. # 1).

Defendants point out that

the Complaint alleges that Plaintiff Alvin Collins suffered a
stroke and life threatening bleeding due to the ingestion of
the medication Xarelto.

Defendants explain: “On December 12,

2014, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (‘JPML’)
concluded that centralization in a single federal-court forum
was

appropriate

for

these

claims

and

issued

an

order

establishing MDL Proceeding No. 2592, captioned In re: Xarelto
(Rivaroxaban) Products Liability Litigation, in the Eastern
District of Louisiana.” (Doc. # 1 at 1).

The MDL includes

actions involving “allegations that plaintiffs suffered severe
bleeding or other injuries as a result of taking Xarelto.”
(Id.)(internal citation omitted).

In the Notice of Removal, Defendants seek an order
staying this case until such time as the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation has determined whether this case will
be transferred to the consolidated multidistrict litigation.
And, the Complaint, in which removal is foreshadowed, states:
To the extent that this action is removed to
federal court, this action is a potential tag-along
action to MDL No. 2592 . . . . An immediate stay of
this action pending transfer by the Judicial Panel
on Mutli-district Litigation of the instant case to
the MDL would be appropriate in order to conserve
the resources of the local Court as well as the
parties.
(Doc. # 2 at 6).
This Court agrees that this case should be stayed pending
transfer, and in the interest of judicial economy, this Court
stays and administratively closes this matter pending the
transfer decision of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation.

In so staying and administratively closing this

case, this Court is mindful of its broad discretion over the
manner in which it manages the cases before it, Chrysler Int’l
Corp. v. Chemaly, 280 F.3d 1358, 1360 (11th Cir. 2002), and
finds that the requested stay is reasonable and appropriate
under the circumstances.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
The Clerk is directed to STAY AND ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE
this

case

until

such

time

as
2

the

Judicial

Panel

on

Multidistrict Litigation has ruled as to whether this case
will

be

transferred

to

the

consolidated

multidistrict

litigation.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, in Tampa, Florida, this
19th day of December, 2017.

3