The State of Louisiana vs. Fresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc. et al

Filing 37

ORDER granting 15 Motion to Stay Further Proceedings Pending JPML Ruling on Transfer. Signed by Judge Shelly D. Dick on 09/09/2014. (CGP)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
THE STATE OF LOUISIANA,
Ex rel JAMES D. “BUDDY” CALDWELL
Attorney General

CIVIL ACTION

NO. 14-490-SDD-RLB
VERSUS
FRESENIUS MEDICAL CARE
HOLDINGS, INC. d/b/a FRESENIUS
MEDICAL CARE NORTH AMERICA, et al.
RULING & ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Motion to Stay Further Proceedings Pending
JPML Ruling on Transfer1 by Defendants, Fresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc. d/b/a
Fresenius Medical Care North America; Fresenius USA, Inc.; Fresenius USA
Manufacturing, Inc.; and Fresenius USA Marketing, Inc. (collectively “Fresenius” or
“Defendants”). Plaintiff, State of Louisiana through Attorney General James D. “Buddy”
Caldwell (“Plaintiff”), has opposed the motion2 and also filed a Motion to Temporarily Stay
Proceedings and Continue Plaintiff’s Deadline to File Its Opposition to Defendant’s Motion
to Dismiss,3 which Fresenius has opposed.4 Before the Court is also a Motion to Remand5
filed by Plaintiff, and a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim6 by Defendants. The

1

Rec. Doc. No. 15.

2

Rec. Doc. No. 31.

3

Rec. Doc. No. 29.

4

Rec. Doc. No. 32

5

Rec. Doc. No. 6.

6

Rec. Doc. No. 19.

Doc 2044

1

Court has granted Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to respond to the Motion to
Dismiss so the Court can address the Motion to Stay.7
I.

BACKGROUND
In March of 2013, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML”) created a

multidistrict litigation (“MDL”) proceeding in the District of Massachusetts for federal actions
involving product liability claims against Fresenius arising out of the use of NaturaLyte and
GranuFlo, products made by Fresenius and used in hemodialysis treatment.8 Fresenius
contends that there are more than 1,900 actions currently pending in the MDL, captioned
In re Fresenius GranuFlo/NaturaLyte Dialysate Products Liability Litigation, No. 1:13-md02428-DPW (D. Mass.). The Master Complaint includes various causes of action including,
inter alia, negligent failure to warn, negligent misrepresentation, breach of warranty, fraud,
and violation of consumer protection laws. Fresenius contends the MDL also includes
cases originally filed in Louisiana and other cases involving Louisiana parties. Additionally,
Fresenius contends the MDL court has already considered and resolved several threshold
jurisdictional issues, including issues arising in cases removed from state court. The MDL
also includes another state-attorney general action from Mississippi.
Fresenius claims this action is similar, although not identical, to the hundreds of
actions already transferred to the MDL. The Petition in this matter asserts causes of action
for alleged violations of Louisiana’s unfair trade practices and consumer protection law, the

7

Rec. Doc. No. 36.

8

See In re Fresenius GranuFlo/NaturaLyte Dialysate Prods. Liab. Litig., 935 F.Supp.2d 1362 (J.P.M.L.
2013)(“All actions involve factual questions relating to whether GranuFlo and NaturaLyte were defectively
designed or manufactured, whether Fresenius, the manufacturer of these dialysate products, knew or should
have known of the alleged propensity of these products to cause injury, and whether it provided adequate
instructions and warnings with these products.”) Id. at 1363.

Doc 2044

2

Medical

Assistance

Programs

Integrity

Law,

for

false

advertising,

negligent

misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, redhibition, and fraud. Fresenius contends other
cases in the MDL court have asserted similar claims with exception of the Medical
Assistance Programs Integrity Law.
Following removal of this case from state court, Plaintiff promptly filed a Motion for
Remand, for which it seeks expedited consideration. On August 13, 2014, the JPML issued
a conditional transfer order9 for this action, finding that it involves questions of fact that are
common to the actions previously transferred. Plaintiff filed an opposition to this order by
the MDL court and has also moved to vacate the conditional transfer order, which is
currently pending before the MDL court.
Fresenius seeks a stay of the proceedings in this Court pending a final ruling of the
JPML regarding the transfer of this case to the MDL court. Fresenius argues that a stay
will advance the purpose of judicial economy and eliminate the potential for conflicting
pretrial rulings. Fresenius cites several cases where the federal district courts have
withheld ruling on motions to remand while the JPML considered a transfer.10 Further,
Fresenius argues that simply because the claims in this case are not entirely identical to
those currently pending before the MDL does preclude transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1407.
Courts have held that “[t]ransfer under Section 1407, however, does not require a complete
identity or even majority of common factual issues as a prerequisite to transfer.”11

9

(CTO-65).

10

Rec. Doc. No. 15-1, p. 6.

11

In re National Sec. Agency Telecommunications Records Litig., 444 F.Supp.2d 1332, 1334
(J.P.M.L. 2006).

Doc 2044

3

Plaintiff contends that it is improper to stay these proceedings prior to deciding the
remand because it contends neither the MDL court nor this Court have jurisdiction over this
matter. Because jurisdiction is a threshold matter, Plaintiff argues it is improper that it not
be considered first priority. Finally, Plaintiff contends it will be prejudiced by a stay because
it has a “sovereign right to pursue its state law claims in state court.”12 Plaintiff complains
it “may be forced to sit in a court lacking jurisdiction for an unknown duration.”13
II.

ANALYSIS
A district court has the inherent power to stay its proceedings. This power to stay

is “incidental to 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.”14 This
is best accomplished by the “exercise of judgment, which must weigh competing interests
and maintain an even balance.”15 When determining whether to exercise its discretion to
stay proceedings, "relevant factors for the Court to consider include: (1) the potential
prejudice to the non-moving party; (2) the hardship and inequity to the moving party if the
action is not stayed; and (3) the judicial resources that would be saved by avoiding
duplicative litigation if the cases are in fact consolidated."16
The Court finds, as have several other courts, that the transferee judge will have the

12

Rec. Doc. No. 31, p. 11.

13

Id.

14

Landis v. No. American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936).

15

Id. at 254–55.

16
Rizk v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., No. 11-2272, 2011 WL 4965498 at *2 (E.D. La. Oct. 19, 2011),
citing La. Stadium & Exposition Dist. v. Fin. Guar. Ins. Co., No. 09–235, 2009 WL 926982, at *1 (E.D.La. Apr.
2, 2009) (citation omitted).

Doc 2044

4

power to determine the question of remand.17 Thus, “regardless of the outcome of the MDL
panel's decision regarding the transfer of this case, plaintiff’s motion to remand will be
resolved.”18 The Court further finds that these jurisdictional challenges can be heard and
resolved by a single court. Thus, after considering and balancing the relevant factors in this
matter, the Court finds that the policies of efficiency and consistency in pre-trial rulings are
furthered by a stay of these proceedings pending the MDL panel’s decision.
III.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Motion to Stay Further Proceedings Pending JPML

Ruling on Transfer19 is GRANTED and the above captioned matter is STAYED.20
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on September 9, 2014.

S
JUDGE SHELLY D. DICK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

17

Reichert v. Mark Starring and Associates, Inc., No. 11-2171, 2011 WL 5078279, at *2 (E.D. La. Oct.
26, 2011)(citing Boudreaux v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 1995 WL 83788, *2 (citing In re Air Crash Disaster
at Florida, 368 F.Supp. 812, 813 (JPML 1973)); see also Harper v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., 2011 WL
3049082, *9 (N.D.Ohio Jul. 25, 2011) (denying an Alabama plaintiff's motion to remand in a case that the
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred to the Northern District of Ohio)).
18

Id., citing Foti v. Warner–Lambert Co., L.L.C., 2005 WL 2036920, *1 (E.D.La. Aug. 16, 2005)
(granting a stay in part because “[i]n either forum (this Court or before the MDL panel), plaintiff will eventually
have its motion to remand resolved.”).
19

Rec. Doc. No. 15.

20

Any pending requested relief in Plaintiff’s Motion to Temporarily Stay Proceedings and Continue
Plaintiff’s Deadline to File Its Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Rec. No. 29) is DENIED as moot.

Doc 2044

5