Christensen et al v. Johnson & Johnson et al

Filing 285

corrected ORDER granting plaintiff's 262 MOTION to Stay of Execution Pending Appeal Without Supersedeas Bondfiled by Calvin Christensen(Written Opinion). Signed by Judge John R. Tunheim on June 25, 2012. (DML)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
IN RE: LEVAQUIN PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION

MDL No. 08-1943 (JRT)

This Document Relates to:

Civil No. 07-3960 (JRT)

CALVIN CHRISTENSEN,
Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER GRANTNG PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR STAY OF EXECUTION
WITHOUT SUPERSEDEAS BOND

JOHNSON & JOHNSON, JANSSEN
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., and JANSSEN
RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT, LLC,
Defendants.

Ronald S. Goldser and David M. Cialkowski, ZIMMERMAN REED,
PLLP, 1100 IDS Center, 80 South Eighth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402;
and Lewis J. Saul and Kevin M. Fitzgerald, LEWIS SAUL &
ASSOCIATES, t183 Middle Street, Suite 200, Portland, ME 04101, lead
counsel for plaintiff Christensen.
James B. Irwin, V, IRWIN FRITCHIE URQUHART & MOORE, LLC,
400 Poydras Street, Suite 2700, New Orleans, LA 70130; Dana M. Lenahan
and Tracy J. Van Steenburgh, NILAN JOHNSON LEWIS, PA, 400 One
Financial Plaza, 120 South Sixth Street, Minneapolis, MN 55402; and
William V. Essig, DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP, 191 North
Wacker Drive, Suite 3700, Chicago, IL 60606; lead counsel for defendants.

Plaintiff Calvin Christensen brought claims against defendants, Johnson &
Johnson and Janssen Pharmaceutical, Inc.,1 for failure to warn about certain risks

1

As of December 29, 2011, Defendant Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was substituted as a
party for Defendant Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Defendant Janssen
Research & Development, LLC (“Janssen R&D”) was substituted for Defendant Johnson &
Johnson Pharmaceutical Research & Development, L.L.C., retroactive to the date the Complaint
was originally filed. (Pretrial Order 7a, Docket No. 256.)

24

involved in taking Levaquin, specifically the risk of tendon rupture. Christensen’s case
was the second tried in multi-district litigation involving numerous plaintiffs. The jury
found for Defendants. The Court denied Christensen’s post-trial motions, and he has
filed a notice of appeal in the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. Christensen now seeks a
stay of the money judgment, requesting that the Court waive the requirement for a
supersedeas bond.
Rule 62(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that, where an appeal
has been taken, the appellant may obtain a stay of the judgment by posting a supersedeas
bond. The stay becomes effective when the Court approves the amount of the bond.
“The ‘general rule’ is for the Court to require a bond in the ‘full amount of the judgment
plus interests, costs, and damages for delay” prior to issuing the stay.’” 3M Innovative
Props. Co. v. Avery-Dennison Corp., No. 01-1781, 2007 WL 2030277, at *1 (D. Minn.
July 10, 2007) (quoting Metz v. United States, 130 F.R.D. 458, 459 (D. Kan. 1990)). The
Court, however, has the discretion to waive the bond requirement and stay the
enforcement of the judgment pending appeal without a bond. See e.g., id.
The Court finds that a stay of the judgment and a waiver of the bond are
appropriate here. Because there are ways of accommodating this judgment in the context
of the multi-district litigation, the Court has confidence that the funds will ultimately be
available to pay the judgment. See Peterson v. United States, No. 99-651, 2000 WL
1909806, at *1 (D. Minn. Oct. 5, 2000) (noting factors the Court may consider when
determining whether to waive the bond requirement). In addition, the Court notes that
the interests of justice weigh in favor of waiving the bond requirement because requiring

-2-

this plaintiff to post a bond could chill litigation by other prospective multi-district
litigation plaintiffs.

ORDER
Based on the foregoing, and all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that Christensen’s Motion Seeking Stay of Execution Pending
Appeal Without Supersedeas Bond [Docket No. 262] is GRANTED. The stay will
remain in effect until further order of this Court.

DATED: June 25, 2012
at Minneapolis, Minnesota.

____s/
____
JOHN R. TUNHEIM
United States District Judge

-3-