Poole et al v. Zimmer, Inc. et al

Filing 14

ORDER that 12 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer or Otherwise Respond is denied as moot. FURTHER ORDERED that 13 Motion to Stay Pending Transfer to Multidistrict Proceedings is granted. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 10/10/12. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

PAIGE OTIS POOLE AND ADELE MONGINI
POOLE,

)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
ZIMMER, INC., et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
__________________________________________)

Case No. 2:12-cv-01588-JCM-CWH
ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion for Extension of Time to Answer or

14

Otherwise Respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint (#12), filed October 8, 2012, and the parties’ Motion

15

to Stay Pending Transfer to Multidistrict Proceedings (#13), filed October 8, 2012.

16

The parties request a stay of all proceedings, including any deadline to answer or otherwise

17

respond to the Complaint, the period for initial disclosures, and all other discovery and pretrial

18

deadlines pending transfer of this action to the United States District Court for the Northern District

19

of Illinois as part of multidistrict proceedings. This action is one of multiple product liability cases

20

in which Plaintiffs allege that Defendants designed, manufactured, and sold an allegedly defective

21

NexGen branded artificial knee implant.

22

The Court finds that the parties have made the strong showing necessary to support the

23

requested stay. See Blankenship v. Hearst Corp., 519 F.2d 418, 429 (9th Cir.1975). A stay of all

24

proceedings is appropriate to promote judicial economy and consistency. On August 8, 2011, the

25

JPML created MDL-2272 and began transferring cases involving NexGen branded artificial knee

26

implants to the Northern District of Illinois for consolidated pretrial proceedings pursuant to 28

27

U.S.C. § 1407. See In Re: Zimmer NexGen Knee Implant Products Liability Litigation, (J.P.M.L.

28

2011) (#110). The Panel was notified of 28 actions pending in 13 districts and 45 additional related
actions. The parties’ contend that the action before this Court will be submitted as a tag-along

1

transfer. Additionally, the Transferee Court is expected to decide the transfer of tag-along actions

2

relatively promptly. As a result, the Court finds that no prejudice will result to the parties by the

3

granting of this stay. Furthermore, in light of the Court’s decision to grant the request for a stay,

4

the Court finds that the parties’ stipulation for an extension of time for Defendants to answer or

5

respond to the Complaint is moot.

6

Based on the foregoing and good cause appearing therefore,

7

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Extension of Time to Answer or

8
9
10
11

Otherwise Respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint (#12) is denied as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties’ Motion to Stay Pending Transfer to
Multidistrict Proceedings (#13) is granted.
DATED this 10th day of October, 2012.

12
13
14

______________________________________
C.W. Hoffman, Jr.
United States Magistrate Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2