Marie et al v. Boneafied Orthopaedics, Inc. et al
Filing
17
ORDER AND REASONS: The 10 Motion to Stay is hereby GRANTED. ORDERED that this matter is hereby stayed and administratively closed pending notification by the MDL Panel of its transfer decision. Signed by Judge Martin L.C. Feldman on 8/17/16. (clc)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
CAROL MARIE, ET AL.
CIVIL ACTION
V.
NO. 16-13138
BONEAFIED ORTHOPAEDICS, INC.,
SECTION F
f/k/a VALLETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC., ET AL.
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is the defendants’ motion to stay matter
pending transfer to MDL 2391.
For the reasons that follow, the
motion is GRANTED.
Background
This lawsuit is one of about 2,500 cases involving metal-onmetal hip implants proceeding in federal court, almost all of which
have
been
transferred
for
coordinated
pretrial
multidistrict
litigation proceedings.
On October 2, 2012, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation issued a transfer order establishing MDL Proceeding
Number 2391.
The transfer order directed that product liability
1
cases
involving
Biomet
hip
implant
related
product
liability
actions be transferred for coordinated pretrial proceedings in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana
before Judge Robert L. Miller, Jr.
Of the nearly 2,500 cases that
were coordinated into the Biomet hip implant MDL, approximately
275 remain pending in the MDL.
More than a dozen of these cases
transferred into MDL No. 2391 have involved issues of subject
matter jurisdiction and alleged fraudulent joinder of Biomet sales
representatives
and
distributors.
The
Judicial
Panel
on
Multidistrict Litigation transferred the cases, including cases
with motions to remand pending, and explained that MDL transfer
would “serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and
promote the just and efficient conduct of litigation.”
On
May
31,
1016,
Carol
and
Mary
Marie
instituted
this
litigation in state court in Jefferson Parish, Louisiana. Alleging
various claims arising out of Mr. Carol Marie’s Biomet hip implant,
Mr. Marie and his wife, Mary, named as defendants Biomet entities,
as well as Steve Vallette and Boneafide Orthopaedics, Inc., a sales
representative and distributor.
The Biomet entities removed this
case to this Court, invoking the Court’s diversity jurisdiction.
In so doing, the Biomet defendants submit in their notice of
removal that diversity of citizenship exists between all properly
joined parties and that the Louisiana citizenship of Vallette and
2
Boneafide must be disregarded because Vallette and Boneafide were
improperly joined to defeat diversity jurisdiction.
On
July
28,
2016,
the
Judicial
Panel
on
Multidistrict
Litigation notified the parties in this lawsuit, by issuing a
conditional transfer order, that it had determined this action to
be appropriate for transfer to MDL 2391.
That same day, the
plaintiffs filed a motion to remand. The defendants now seek an
order staying all pretrial activity in this case pending transfer
by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1407, to In re Biomet M2a Magnum Hip Implants Products
Liability, MDL No. 2391. 1
I.
The defendants urge the Court to stay these proceedings
pending the JPML’s decision to transfer this case for coordinated
pretrial proceedings taking place in the Biomet hip implant MDL
pending in the Northern District of Indiana. The plaintiffs oppose
the defendants’ request for a stay, urging instead that the Court
consider their remand motion that is set for hearing on August 31,
2016.
Because there is no dispute that the claims advanced in the
After the Biomet defendants moved to stay, they also moved for
expedited hearing on their contested motion to stay or,
alternatively, requested that the Court continue the hearing on
the plaintiffs’ motion to remand so that the motion to stay could
be heard first. On August 3, 2016, the Court continued the hearing
on the plaintiffs’ motion to remand.
1
3
Maries’ lawsuit fall within the scope of the October 2, 2012
transfer order, the Court in its discretion finds that a stay
pending the JPML’s decision on transfer is appropriate.
If the
case is ultimately transferred, the transferee judge (as he has in
other cases transferred to the MDL) will consider the fraudulent
joinder and subject matter jurisdiction issues raised by the
plaintiffs in their remand motion.
District courts routinely exercise their discretion to stay
cases pending MDL transfer, particularly where doing so will
promote judicial economy and minimize the risk of inconsistent
pretrial rulings.
See, e.g., Rizk v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc.,
No. 11-2272, 2011 WL 4965498, at *3 (E.D. la. Oct. 19, 2011).
This
is so even where plaintiffs have filed motions to remand before
the transferor court.
DePuy
Orthopaedics,
2011)(Africk,
See id.; see also Rec. Doc. 32 of Laman v.
Inc.,
J.)(granting
No.
10-4658
defendants’
(E.D.
La.
Jan.
31,
motion
to
stay
and
deferring ruling on the plaintiff’s motion to remand); see also
Rec. Doc. 21 of Butler v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., No. 10-4637
(E.D. La. Jan. 31, 2011)(Engelhardt, J.)(same).
Moreover, where,
as here, the plaintiff has failed to demonstrate how a stay pending
transfer might cause them undue prejudice, the Court finds that a
temporary stay is appropriate.
4
The
defendants’
motion
to
stay
is
hereby
GRANTED.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED: that this matter is hereby stayed and
administratively closed pending notification by the MDL Panel of
its transfer decision.
New Orleans, Louisiana, August 17, 2016
________________________
MARTIN L.C. FELDMAN
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
5
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?