Vedros v. Northrop Grumman et al

Filing 48

ORDER & REASONS granting 26 Motion to Stay 9 Motion to Remand to State Court pending anticipated transfer to MDL-875. Signed by Chief Judge Sarah S. Vance on 6/15/2011. (rll, ) Modified on 6/15/2011 to edit doc type (rll, ).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
SALLY GROS VEDROS

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO: 11-1198

NORTHROP GRUMMANN
SHIPBUILDING, INC., et al.

SECTION: R

ORDER & REASONS
Before the Court is defendant CBC Corporation’s motion to
stay consideration of plaintiff’s motion to remand pending the
anticipated transfer of this asbestos-related case to MDL-875.1
Because the motion to remand raises issues similar to those
raised in the MDL-transferee court, the Court GRANTS the stay.

I.

BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Sally Vedros filed the instant action on October

28, 2010, in Louisiana state court, alleging that her
mesothelioma was caused by exposure to the asbestos-containing
products of multiple defendants.2

Defendants CBC Corporation,

Foster Wheeler, LLC and General Electric Company filed a notice
of removal on May 20, 2011.3

Defendants also filed a “tag along”

notice, seeking to transfer this case to the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to be
1

R. Doc. 26.

2

R. Doc. 1-1, Ex. A.

3

R. Doc. 1

included in MDL-875.
Transfer Order.

The MDL panel entered a Conditional

Plaintiff has opposed transfer to the MDL.4

On May 23, 2011, plaintiff filed a motion to remand,
asserting that the case was improperly removed under the Federal
Officer Removal Statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1), and that the
notice of removal was procedurally defective.5

Defendants oppose

the motion to remand asserting the government contractor immunity
defense.6

Defendant CBC also filed this motion to stay

consideration of the motion to remand pending a determination as
to the transfer of this case by the MDL panel.7

Plaintiff

opposes the stay, asserting that the proposed stay would cause
her prejudice.8

On June 9, 2011, defendant Albert Bossier filed

a statement noting the death of the plaintiff during the pendency
of this action.9

II.

DISCUSSION
The Court has broad discretion to stay proceedings and

“[t]he proponent of a stay bears the burden of establishing its
4

R. Doc. 30 at 1-2.

5

R. Doc. 9.

6

R. Doc. 22; R. Doc. 23; R. Doc. 24; R. Doc. 25.

7

R. Doc. 26.

8

R. Doc. 30.

9

R. Doc. 47.
2

need.”

Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706, 708 (1997).

In

deciding whether to rule on a motion to remand, the Court should
consider “whether the motion raises issues likely to arise in
other actions pending in the MDL-transferee court.”

Shields v.

Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 232 F. Supp. 2d 715, 718 (E.D. Tex.
2002).

When the motion to remand raises issues similar to those

raised in actions in the MDL transferee-court, the court should
grant the motion to stay.

Id.

In these cases, granting a stay

will avoid the risk of inconsistent and conflicting rulings while
conserving judicial resources.

Id.

Here, a stay pending a determination regarding transfer to
the MDL transferee court is in the interests of judicial economy.
The MDL court has recently decided two motions to remand raising
issues similar to those raised in plaintiff’s motion to remand.
See In re. Asbestos Prods. Liab. Litig. (No. VI), No. 10-67141,
2011 WL 921647, at *1-2, 4-6 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 15, 2011) (holding
that removal was proper because defendant had raised a colorable
federal contractor defense);

Hagen v. Benjamin Foster Co., 739

F. Supp. 2d 770, 777-86 (E.D. Pa. 2010) (denying plaintiff’s
motion to remand because manufacturers of asbestos-containing
products used aboard Navy ships had advanced a colorable
government contractor defense to products liability action
alleging failure to warn, as required for removal under the
Federal Officer Removal Statute).

3

The Court, therefore, finds

that staying consideration of the motion to remand will prevent
the risk of inconsistent and conflicting rulings while conserving
judicial resources.
Additionally, the Court finds that plaintiff will not suffer
undue prejudice if the stay is granted.

Plaintiff has already

filed her motion to vacate the Conditional Transfer Order and
acknowledges that any response to her motion is due on or before
July 1, 2011.

The Court, therefore, does not find that granting

the stay pending a determination by the MDL panel will cause
undue delay.

Further, the reasons for prejudice stated in

plaintiff’s opposition to the motion to stay are now moot.
Accordingly, the Court finds that plaintiff’s motion to remand
should be stayed pending a determination by the MDL panel as to
whether the case is appropriate for transfer.

III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS defendant’s
motion to stay consideration of the motion to remand.

New Orleans, Louisiana, this 15th day of June, 2011.

SARAH S. VANCE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4