Youngdahl v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. et al

Filing 30

ORDER granting 4 Defendants' Motion to Stay; deferring ruling on 8 Plaintiff's Motion to Remand to State Court pending the MDL's transfer decision; denying 25 Defendants' Motion to Strike Pleading as moot (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Ann D. Montgomery on 11/08/2013. (TLU)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Debra J. Youngdahl,
Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER
Civil No. 13-2468 ADM/TNL

DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., and
Simpson & Associates, Inc.,
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
Rolf Fiebiger, Esq., Timothy J. Becker, Esq., and Lisa Ann Gorshe, Esq., Johnson Becker PLLC,
Minneapolis, MN, on behalf of Plaintiff.
Scott A. Smith, Esq., Tracy J. Van Steenburgh, Esq., and Jan R. McLean Bernier, Esq., Nilan
Johnson Lewis PA, Minneapolis, MN, on behalf of Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
On November 7, 2013, the undersigned United States District Judge heard oral argument
on Defendants DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. (“DePuy”) and Simpson & Associates, Inc.’s Motion to
Stay [Docket No. 4]. The Court deferred hearing Plaintiff Debra J. Youngdahl’s Motion to
Remand [Docket No. 8] and took Defendants’ Motion to Strike Pleading [Docket No. 25] under
advisement based on the briefing. For the reasons stated below, the motion to stay is granted and
the motion to strike is denied.
The United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“MDL Panel”) has held the
Northern District of Ohio is an “appropriate Section 1407 forum for actions sharing factual
questions arising from alleged injuries from DePuy’s recalled ASR XL Acetabular Hip System.”
See In re: DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., ASR Hip Implant Products Liability Litigation, MDL No.
2197, Transfer Order, April 16, 2012. In April 2012, the MDL transferred Anderson, et al. v.
Simpson & Associates, Inc., et al., formerly United States District Court of Minnesota case no.

11-cv-3554, to the Northern District of Ohio. Plaintiff agrees that the present action has “almost
the exact same facts and involv[es] these same Defendants.” Pl.’s Mem. Opp’n to Stay [Docket
No. 16] 1. Furthermore, Plaintiff has offered no distinction between the legal issues of this case
and Anderson. Respecting the uniformity, consistency, and predictability in litigation that
underlies the multidistrict litigation system, a stay is appropriate until the MDL Panel decides
whether to transfer this action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1407. Therefore the Court grants Defendants’
motion to stay and denies Defendants’ motion to strike as moot.
Based upon the foregoing, and all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that:
1.

Defendants’ Motion to Stay [Docket No. 4] is GRANTED;

2.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand is DEFERRED pending the MDL’s transfer
decision; and

3.

Defendants’ Motion to Strike Pleading [Docket No. 25] is DENIED as
moot.
BY THE COURT:

s/Ann D. Montgomery
ANN D. MONTGOMERY
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: November 8, 2013.

2