Stirling et al v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company et al

Filing 21

ORDER Granting 18 Motion to Stay. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen on 8/9/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - TR)

Case 2:16-cv-01597-GMN-PAL Document 18 Filed 08/08/16 Page 1 of 9

1
2
3
4
5
6

KELLY A. EVANS, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 7691
CHAD R. FEARS, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 6970
SNELL & WILMER L.L.P.
3883 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 1100
Las Vegas, Nevada 89169
702.784.5200
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendant Bristol-Myers
Squibb Company

7
8
9
10

LAW OFFICES
3883 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 1100
Las Vegas, Nevada 89169
702.784.5200

Snell & Wilmer
L.L.P.

11
12

JEFFREY S. RUGG, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 10978
BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK, LLP
100 North City Parkway, Suite 1600
Las Vegas, Nevada 89106
702.382.2101
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendants Otsuka
America Pharmaceutical, Inc. and
Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.

13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

14

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

15
16

DAVID STIRLING and MIGDALIA
STIRLING,

17

Case No. 2:16-cv-01597-GMN-PAL
Plaintiffs,

18
vs.
19
20
21

BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY,
OTSUKA PHARMACEUTICAL CO., LTD.,
and OTSUKA AMERICA
PHARMACEUTICAL, INC.,

22

DEFENDANTS’ UNOPPOSED
MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS
PENDING DECISION BY THE
JUDICIAL PANEL ON
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

Defendants.

23
24

Defendants Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Otsuka America Pharmaceutical, Inc., and

25

Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. hereby move this Court for an Order granting their Unopposed

26

Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending a Decision by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

27

(“JPML”).

28

temporary stay while the JPML considers the recently filed joint motion to establish a

As explained in the accompanying memorandum of points and authorities, a

Case 2:16-cv-01597-GMN-PAL Document 18 Filed 08/08/16 Page 2 of 9

1

multidistrict litigation for Abilify® compulsive behavior cases will serve the interests of

2

efficiency and conservation of judicial resources.

3
4

Plaintiffs do not oppose this motion.
Dated: August 8, 2016

5
6

By:

7
8
9
10

LAW OFFICES
3883 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 1100
Las Vegas, Nevada 89169
702.784.5200

Snell & Wilmer
L.L.P.

11

/s/ Chad Fears
Kelly A. Evans, Esq. (#7691)
Chad R. Fears, Esq. (#6970)
SNELL & WILMER L.L.P.
3883 Howard Hughes Parkway #1100
Las Vegas, Nevada 89169
702.784.5200
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendant Bristol-Myers
Squibb Company

12
By:

13
14
15
16

/s/ Jeffrey Rugg
Jeffrey S. Rugg, Esq. (#10978)
BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER
SCHRECK, LLP
100 North City Parkway, Suite 1600
Las Vegas, Nevada 89106
702.382.2101
[e-mail]

17
Attorneys for Defendants Otsuka America
Pharmaceutical, Inc. and Otsuka
Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-

Case 2:16-cv-01597-GMN-PAL Document 18 Filed 08/08/16 Page 3 of 9

1

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’
UNOPPOSED MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS PENDING DECISION BY THE
JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

2
3
4

I.

INTRODUCTION

5

Defendants Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Otsuka America Pharmaceutical, Inc., and

6

Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.1 (collectively, “Defendants”) respectfully submit this unopposed

7

motion to stay all proceedings in this case until resolution of the joint motion to establish a

8

multidistrict litigation (“MDL”) for Abilify® compulsive behavior litigation nationwide.

time filed a joint motion with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML” or “Panel”)

11
LAW OFFICES
3883 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 1100
Las Vegas, Nevada 89169
702.784.5200

On June 24, 2016, the parties in the 26 Abilify compulsive behavior cases pending at that

10

Snell & Wilmer
L.L.P.

9

for transfer of those cases and any subsequent related actions involving similar claims—such as

12

this case—to a single jurisdiction for coordinated and consolidated pretrial proceedings in order

13

to ensure uniformity of decisions and to avoid unnecessary duplication of efforts. Granting a

14

temporary stay in this case would further those interests. Such a stay would be brief, as the

15

Parties expect the JPML to hear the motion on September 29, 2016, and the Panel is expected to

16

render a decision shortly thereafter.

17

II.

BACKGROUND

18

Plaintiffs filed this action on July 6, 2016, alleging that Plaintiff David Stirling was

19

prescribed and took the prescription medication Abilify® from May 2009 until October 2014, and

20

that it caused him to gamble pathologically. Compl. ¶ 8, ECF No. 1.

21

This case is one of 33 cases now pending in 18 federal jurisdictions that allege that

22

Defendants failed to warn prescribers and consumers of Abilify of “an increased risk of serious

23

and dangerous side effects including, without limitation, uncontrollable compulsive behaviors

24

such as compulsive gambling.” Compl. ¶¶ 4, 103. In light of the nationwide scope of the

25

litigation, on June 24, 2016, the parties in the 26 Abilify compulsive behavior cases pending at

26
27

1

Defendant Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. (“OPC”), a Japanese company headquartered
in Japan, anticipates filing a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. No waiver of any
challenge to personal jurisdiction is created or implied by joining in this motion.

28
-3-

Case 2:16-cv-01597-GMN-PAL Document 18 Filed 08/08/16 Page 4 of 9

1

that time jointly filed a motion with the JPML to transfer those cases and any subsequent related

2

actions involving similar claims—such as this case—to a single judge in the Northern District of

3

Florida for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 (“MDL

4

Motion”) (attached as Exhibit A). On July 11, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a notice with the JPML that

5

this action is related to the 26 cases subject to the MDL Motion (attached as Exhibit B).

behavior cases except those pending in the Northern District of Florida. Thus far, stays of

8

proceedings pending decision by the JPML have been entered in eighteen of the cases. See

9

Docket Text Order, Leland v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., No. 6:16-cv-3023 (W.D. Mo. June 29,

10

2016), ECF No. 58 (attached as Exhibit C); Order Granting Defendants’ Unopposed Motion to

11
LAW OFFICES
3883 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 1100
Las Vegas, Nevada 89169
702.784.5200

Defendants are in the process of filing motions to stay in all the Abilify compulsive

7

Snell & Wilmer
L.L.P.

6

Stay Proceedings Pending Decision By Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, Kinder v.

12

Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., No. 1:16-cv-170 (D. Md. June 29, 2016), ECF No. 60 [hereinafter “D.

13

Md. Stay Order”] (attached as Exhibit D)2; Order, Bowman v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.,

14

No. 8:16-cv-117 (M.D. Fla. June 30, 2016), ECF No. 73 (attached as Exhibit E); Order, Edgar v.

15

Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., No. 1:16-cv-654 (M.D. Pa. July 5, 2016), ECF No. 50 (attached as

16

Exhibit F)3; Order, Tripler v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., No. 16-cv-244 (E.D. Pa. July 6, 2016),

17

ECF No. 50 (attached as Exhibit G); Order, Clarke v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., No. 2:16-cv-447

18

(M.D. Fla. July 6, 2016), ECF No. 13 (attached as Exhibit H); Order, Miley v. Bristol-Myers

19

Squibb Co., No. 0:16-cv-67 (D. Minn. July 8, 2016), ECF No. 55 (attached as Exhibit I); Order

20

Granting Defendants’ Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending MDL Panel Decision, Pamintuan v.

21

Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., No. 3:16-cv-254 (N.D. Cal. July 14, 2016), ECF No. 60 [hereinafter

22

“N.D. Cal. Stay Order”] (attached as Exhibit J); Order Granting Motion to Stay, Adams v. Bristol-

23

Myers Squibb Co., No. 1:16-cv-1674 (D. Colo. July 18, 2016), ECF No. 9 [hereinafter “D. Colo.

24

Stay Order”] (attached as Exhibit K); Order, Reese v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., No. 8:16-cv-116

25

2

26
27

Identical orders also were entered in Davis v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., No. 1:16-cv-171
(D. Md.), Schaap v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., No. 1:16-cv-172 (D. Md.), and Butler v. BristolMyers Squibb Co., No 1:16-cv-173 (D. Md.).
3
An identical order also was entered in Bowman v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.,
No. 1:16-cv-1140 (M.D. Pa.).

28
-4-

Case 2:16-cv-01597-GMN-PAL Document 18 Filed 08/08/16 Page 5 of 9

1

(M.D. Fla. July 22, 2016), ECF No. 72 (attached as Exhibit L); Order Granting Defendants’

2

Unopposed Motion to Stay Pending Decision by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation,

3

Sears v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., No. 1:16-cv-65 (E.D. Cal. July 29, 2016), ECF No. 60

4

(attached as Exhibit M)4.5

5

III.

ARGUMENT

common questions of fact are pending in different districts, such actions may be transferred to

8

any district for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.” 28 U.S.C. § 1407(a). While

9

this action is not automatically stayed upon the filing of the MDL Motion, it is within the Court’s

10

discretion to grant a stay, particularly if doing so would serve the interests of judicial economy

11
LAW OFFICES
3883 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 1100
Las Vegas, Nevada 89169
702.784.5200

Under the Multidistrict Litigation Act, “[w]hen civil actions involving one or more

7

Snell & Wilmer
L.L.P.

6

and efficiency.

12

proceedings is “incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the

13

causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants”);

14

Levya v. Certified Grocers of Cal., Ltd., 593 F.2d 857, 863–64 (9th Cir. 1979) (“A trial court

15

may, with propriety, find it is efficient for its own docket and the fairest course for the parties to

16

enter a stay of an action before it, pending resolution of independent proceedings which bear

17

upon the case.”).

18

See Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936) (discretion to stay

Courts in this District have granted temporary stays, like the one requested here, pending

19

decisions by the JPML on Section 1407 motions.

20

No. 2:15-cv-78, 2015 WL 3932415, at *2 (D. Nev. June 24, 2015) (granting motion to stay

21

pending decision by JPML); F.I.M. v. U.S. Dep’t of the Interior, No. 3:14-cv-630, 2015 WL

22

4

23
24
25
26
27

See, e.g., Hernandez v. Asni, Inc.,

Identical orders also were entered in Reynolds v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.,
No. 1:16-cv-357 (E.D. Cal.), Harper-Mosley v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., No. 1:16-cv-609 (E.D.
Cal.), and Vickers v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., No. 1:16-cv-737 (E.D. Cal.).
5
One judge denied Defendants’ unopposed motions to stay in two cases without prejudice
and without explanation. See Order Denying Motion to Stay Pending Grant of MDL Petition,
Thomas v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., No. 2:16-cv-326 (C.D. Cal. July 6, 2016), ECF No. 71
(attached as Exhibit N); Order Denying Motion to Stay Pending Grant of MDL Petition,
Tsiryulnikova v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., No. 2:16-cv-4046 (C.D. Cal. July 6, 2016), ECF
No. 24 (identical to Thomas order). Both cases were subsequently dismissed voluntarily without
prejudice. See Thomas, No. 2:16-cv-326, ECF No. 79; Tsiryulnikova, No. 2:16-cv-4046, ECF
No. 30.

28
-5-

Case 2:16-cv-01597-GMN-PAL Document 18 Filed 08/08/16 Page 6 of 9

1

2165274, at *3 (D. Nev. May 7, 2015) (same); Lee v. Depuy Orthopaedics, Inc.,

2

No. 2:12-cv-1164, 2012 WL 4795658, at *2 (D. Nev. Oct. 8, 2012) (same); Innovatio IP

3

Ventures, LLC v. MEI-GSR Holdings LLC, No. 3:11-cv-343, 2011 WL 6812541, at *1 (D. Nev.

4

Dec. 27, 2011) (same).

complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction, a stay is particularly appropriate here to ensure

7

uniform application of federal personal jurisdiction standards to the Abilify compulsive behavior

8

cases. See MDL Motion at 9 (explaining overlapping challenges by OPC to personal jurisdiction

9

in each of the actions and efficiencies that would result from coordinated treatment); see also In

10

re Ivy, 901 F.2d 7, 9 (2d Cir. 1990) (“Once transferred [to the MDL], the jurisdictional objections

11
LAW OFFICES
3883 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 1100
Las Vegas, Nevada 89169
702.784.5200

Because Defendant Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. anticipates moving to dismiss the

6

Snell & Wilmer
L.L.P.

5

can be heard and resolved by a single court and reviewed at the appellate level in due course.

12

Consistency as well as economy is thus served.”); N.D. Cal. Stay Order, Pamintuan,

13

No. 3:16-cv-254, ECF No. 60 (“[I]t makes sense for the court handling any MDL to have the

14

opportunity to resolve issues like personal jurisdiction in a uniform manner.”). Indeed, federal

15

district courts often grant stays to allow an MDL court to decide pending motions to dismiss. See,

16

e.g., Docket Text Order, Leland, No. 6:16-cv-3023, ECF No. 58 (granting stay of proceedings,

17

including motion to dismiss, pending decision by JPML); D. Md. Stay Order, Kinder,

18

No. 1:16-cv-170, ECF No. 60 (same); Order, Bowman, No. 8:16-cv-117, ECF No. 73 (same);

19

Sprint Commc’ns Co. v. Pac. Bell Tel. Co., No. 2:14-cv-1257, 2014 WL 7239474, at *1–2 (E.D.

20

Cal. Dec. 16, 2014) (same); Milan v. Rama, No. 13-cv-3796, 2013 WL 5496462, at *2 (N.D. Cal.

21

Oct. 3, 2013) (same); Eggart v. A.L.S. Enters., No. 09-cv-107, 2009 WL 1587904, at *1 (E.D.

22

Wash. June 2, 2009) (same).

23

A brief stay will not prejudice any party. The Parties expect the JPML to hear the MDL

24

Motion at its September 29, 2016 session, and the Panel is expected to render a decision shortly

25

thereafter. See John G. Heyburn II, A View from the Panel: Part of the Solution, 82 TUL. L. REV.

26

2225, 2242 (2008) (“The Panel’s rules already require a tight briefing schedule prior to oral

27

argument on all § 1407 transfer motions. The Panel prepares extensively for oral argument and

28

usually reaches a decision on each case during its conference immediately afterwards . . . .”). In
-6-

Case 2:16-cv-01597-GMN-PAL Document 18 Filed 08/08/16 Page 7 of 9

1

addition, Plaintiffs do not oppose this Motion, thus making a stay even more appropriate. See D.

2

Colo. Stay Order, Adams, No. 1:16-cv-1674, ECF No. 9 (“The Plaintiffs do not oppose the

3

request and I agree that a temporary stay of proceedings is in all of the parties’ best interests.

4

Further, the JPML is expected to rule on the motion to transfer by early October 2016 at the latest

5

and, thus, the stay requested is likely to be brief, which minimizes any potential prejudice to any

6

party.”).

7

Moreover, this action is at an early stage. The benefits of granting a stay outweigh any

No. 3:16-cv-254, ECF No. 60 (“The Court finds that a temporary stay of proceedings in this

10

action is appropriate pending a decision by the Panel on whether to consolidate the Abilify

11
LAW OFFICES
3883 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 1100
Las Vegas, Nevada 89169
702.784.5200

short delay at this early phase of the case.

9

Snell & Wilmer
L.L.P.

8

compulsive behavior cases in a single MDL proceeding.”); Order, Miley, No. 0:16-cv-67, ECF

12

No. 55 (“The Court agrees that the conservation of judicial resources is best served by allowing

13

the JPML time to determine whether this action should be part of an MDL, or should proceed as a

14

stand-alone case in this District.”); F.I.M., 2015 WL 2165274, at *2 (“Any potential prejudice to

15

Plaintiffs from the stay and commensurate delay in discovery would be minimal in light of the

16

stay’s short duration.”); Stark v. Pfizer, No. 14-cv-1488, 2014 WL 2938445, at *2 (N.D. Cal. June

17

27, 2014) (“The potential prejudice to Plaintiff that could result from a stay is minimal, as the

18

JPML’s decision is likely to be issued shortly. On the other hand, Defendants would face the risk

19

of unnecessary proceedings and inconsistent rulings on recurring questions of law and fact if the

20

case is not stayed.”); Weaver v. Pfizer, No. 2:14-cv-818, 2014 WL 2002212, at *4 (E.D. Cal. May

21

15, 2014) (“The potential burden on [defendant] of having to defend itself in multiple fora favors

22

entry of a stay pending decision of the [JPML]. Moreover, defendant may have to relitigate any

23

decisions this court reaches if the case is transferred to the MDL court.” (internal citations

24

omitted)).

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///
-7-

See N.D. Cal. Stay Order, Pamintuan,

Case 2:16-cv-01597-GMN-PAL Document 18 Filed 08/08/16 Page 8 of 9

1
2
3
4

III.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants respectfully request a temporary stay of all

proceedings in this case pending a decision by the JPML on the MDL Motion.
Dated: August 8, 2016

5
6

By:

7
8
9
10

LAW OFFICES
3883 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 1100
Las Vegas, Nevada 89169
702.784.5200

Snell & Wilmer
L.L.P.

11

/s/ Chad Fears
Kelly A. Evans, Esq. (#7691)
Chad R. Fears, Esq. (#6970)
SNELL & WILMER L.L.P.
3883 Howard Hughes Parkway #1100
Las Vegas, Nevada 89169
702.784.5200
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendant Bristol-Myers
Squibb Company

12
By:

13
14
15
16

/s/ Jeffrey Rugg
Jeffrey S. Rugg, Esq. (#10978)
BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER
SCHRECK, LLP
100 North City Parkway, Suite 1600
Las Vegas, Nevada 89106
702.382.2101
[e-mail]

17
Attorneys for Defendants Otsuka America
Pharmaceutical, Inc. and Otsuka
Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.

18
19
20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED:

22
23
24

August 9, 2016
DATED: __________________

_______________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

25
26
27
28
-8-

Case 2:16-cv-01597-GMN-PAL Document 18 Filed 08/08/16 Page 9 of 9

1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

2

I, the undersigned, declare under penalty of perjury, that on AUGUST 8, 2016, a true and

3

correct copy of the foregoing DEFENDANTS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION TO STAY

4

PROCEEDINGS

5

MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION was electronically filed with the clerk of the court by using

6

CM/ECF service all parties involved in this case and receiving service via the court’s CM/ECF

7

service which will provide copies to all counsel of record registered to receive CM/ECF

8

notification.

PENDING

DECISION

BY

THE

JUDICIAL

9
10

LAW OFFICES
3883 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 1100
Las Vegas, Nevada 89169
702.784.5200

Snell & Wilmer
L.L.P.

11

/s/ Julia Melnar
An Employee of Snell & Wilmer L.L.P.

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-9-

PANEL

ON

Case 2:16-cv-01597-GMN-PAL Document 18-1 Filed 08/08/16 Page 1 of 26

EXHIBIT A

Case 2:16-cv-01597-GMN-PAL Document Filed 06/24/16 Page 1 of 5 2 of 26
Case MDL No. 2734 Document 1 18-1 Filed 08/08/16 Page

BEFORE THE UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL
ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
MDL No. ___________

IN RE: ABILIFY COMPULSIVE
BEHAVIOR PRODUCTS
LIABILITY LITIGATION

JOINT MOTION FOR TRANSFER OF
ACTIONS PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C.
§ 1407
ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 and Rule 6.2 of the Rules of Procedure for the Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, Plaintiffs Denise Miley and Brad Miley, with the
consent of other plaintiffs, and Defendants Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Otsuka
Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. 1 and Otsuka America Pharmaceutical, Inc. (collectively,
“Parties”) move to transfer all Abilify® compulsive behavior cases pending in the
federal courts to the Northern District of Florida for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings before the Honorable M. Casey Rodgers, before whom two Abilify
compulsive behavior cases are pending.
As explained more fully in the accompanying memorandum, a § 1407 transfer of
these actions to the Northern District of Florida is appropriate:
1.

The 26 lawsuits identified in the accompanying Schedule of Actions (“Abilify

Compulsive Behavior Cases”) involve product liability suits that arise out of the
Defendant Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. contests personal jurisdiction in the
United States federal courts, and it has filed motions to dismiss on this basis. Otsuka
Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. supports creation of an MDL, but reserves all rights regarding
its objection to personal jurisdiction. No waiver of any challenge to personal
jurisdiction is created or implied by supporting this motion.
1

1

Case 2:16-cv-01597-GMN-PAL Document Filed 06/24/16 Page 2 of 5 3 of 26
Case MDL No. 2734 Document 1 18-1 Filed 08/08/16 Page

plaintiffs’ use of Abilify and each plaintiff alleges that Abilify caused compulsive
gambling.
2.

The Abilify Compulsive Behavior Cases are pending in the Northern District

of Florida (two cases), the Middle District of Florida (three cases), the Central District of
California (three cases), the Eastern District of California (four cases), the Northern
District of California (one case), the Southern District of Indiana (one case), the District
of Maryland (four cases), the District of Minnesota (one case), the Western District of
Missouri (one case), the District of New Jersey (three cases), the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania (one case), and the Middle District of Pennsylvania (two cases).
3.

Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery, prevent inconsistent

pretrial rulings, and promote judicial efficiency. In particular, centralization will allow
the Parties to coordinate document discovery and to coordinate a single set of
depositions of the key witnesses.
4.

The Parties request that these cases be centralized in the Northern District of

Florida before the Honorable M. Casey Rodgers, before whom two Abilify compulsive
behavior cases are pending. Chief Judge Rodgers has over 13 years of experience as a
federal judge. She has served as a District Court Judge since 2003, following her term as
a United States Magistrate Judge. During her tenure, she has presided over multiple
cases remanded from multidistrict litigations involving complex product liability
actions, as well as numerous class actions.
WHEREFORE, the Parties respectfully ask the Panel to issue an Order transferring
all the actions listed in the accompanying Schedule of Actions, as well as all
2

Case 2:16-cv-01597-GMN-PAL Document Filed 06/24/16 Page 3 of 5 4 of 26
Case MDL No. 2734 Document 1 18-1 Filed 08/08/16 Page

subsequently filed related actions, for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings
before Chief Judge Rodgers in the Northern District of Florida.

Dated: June 24, 2016

Respectfully submitted,
By: /s/ Gary L. Wilson
Gary L. Wilson
Munir R. Meghjee
Megan J. McKenzie
ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
800 LaSalle Avenue, Suite 2800
Minneapolis, MN 55402-2015
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs/Movants Denise Miley and
Brad Miley

Dated: June 24, 2016

By: /s/ Kristian Rasmussen
Kristian Rasmussen
CORY WATSON, P.C.
2131 Magnolia Avenue, Suite 200
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Dated: June 24, 2016

By: /s/ J. Gordon Rudd Jr.
J. Gordon Rudd Jr.
ZIMMERMAN REED
80 South Eighth Street, Suite 100
Minneapolis, MN 55402
3

Case 2:16-cv-01597-GMN-PAL Document Filed 06/24/16 Page 4 of 5 5 of 26
Case MDL No. 2734 Document 1 18-1 Filed 08/08/16 Page

Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Dated: June 24, 2016

By: /s/ George T. Williamson
George T. Williamson
FARR, FARR, EMERICH, HACKETT, CARR
& HOLMES, P.A.
99 Nesbit Street
Punta Gorda, FL 33950
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Dated: June 24, 2016

By: /s/ Anand Agneshwar
Anand Agneshwar
ARNOLD & PORTER LLP
399 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10022-4690
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
Matthew Eisenstein
ARNOLD & PORTER LLP
601 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
matthew.eisenstein@ aporter.com
Barry J. Thompson
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: [phone]
4

Case 2:16-cv-01597-GMN-PAL Document Filed 06/24/16 Page 5 of 5 6 of 26
Case MDL No. 2734 Document 1 18-1 Filed 08/08/16 Page

Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
Lauren S. Colton
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
100 International Drive, Suite 200
Baltimore, MD 21202
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendant Bristol-Myers Squibb
Company
Dated: June 24, 2016

By: /s/ Matthew A. Campbell
Matthew A. Campbell
WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
1700 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
Luke A. Connelly
WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
200 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10166
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendants Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co.,
Ltd. and Otsuka America Pharmaceutical, Inc.

5

Case 2:16-cv-01597-GMN-PAL Document 18-1 06/24/16 Page 1 of 16 of 26
Case MDL No. 2734 Document 1-1 Filed Filed 08/08/16 Page 7

BEFORE THE UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL
ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
MDL No. ___________

IN RE: ABILIFY COMPULSIVE
BEHAVIOR PRODUCTS
LIABILITY LITIGATION

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF
JOINT MOTION FOR TRANSFER OF
ACTIONS PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C.
§ 1407
ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED

INTRODUCTION
Plaintiffs Denise Miley and Brad Miley, with the consent of other plaintiffs, and
Defendants Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. 1 and
Otsuka America Pharmaceutical, Inc. (collectively, “Parties”) move, pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1407, to transfer all Abilify® compulsive behavior cases pending in the federal
courts to the Northern District of Florida for coordinated and consolidated pretrial
proceedings before the Honorable M. Casey Rodgers, before whom two Abilify
compulsive behavior cases are pending.
Abilify is a prescription medication used to treat patients with serious and
debilitating mental health conditions. Abilify has received approval from the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration (“FDA”) for its indicated uses, and doctors widely prescribe it

Defendant Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. contests personal jurisdiction in the
United States Federal Courts, and it has filed motions to dismiss on this basis. Otsuka
Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. supports creation of an MDL, but reserves all rights regarding
its objection to personal jurisdiction. No waiver of any challenge to personal
jurisdiction is created or implied by supporting this motion.
1

86838830.1

1

Case 2:16-cv-01597-GMN-PAL Document 18-1 06/24/16 Page 2 of 16 of 26
Case MDL No. 2734 Document 1-1 Filed Filed 08/08/16 Page 8

to treat patients with schizophrenia, bipolar I disorder, and major depressive disorder.
Abilify is manufactured as tablets, oral solution, and injection. Since its U.S. launch
over 13 years ago, an estimated 24 million patients have used Abilify.
On May 3, 2016, the FDA, in an “FDA Safety Communication,” announced that
warnings regarding “compulsive or uncontrollable urges to gamble, binge eat, shop,
and have sex” would be added to the Abilify label. 2
Movant Denise Miley and her husband Brad Miley filed the first Abilify
compulsive behavior case on January 12, 2016, in the District of Minnesota.3
Currently, a total of 26 Abilify compulsive behavior cases filed by four different law
firms are pending in 12 different federal district courts before 14 different federal
district judges. 4

Many more federal cases are expected.

In addition, 13 Abilify

compulsive behavior lawsuits pending in New Jersey state court have been
consolidated in one proceeding for pretrial coordination.5 In total, Plaintiffs’ counsel
anticipate that hundreds of additional Abilify compulsive behavior cases will be filed.
All of the lawsuits arise out of the plaintiffs’ use of Abilify and each plaintiff alleges that
Abilify caused compulsive gambling. Consolidation of these cases is critical to avoid

FDA Drug Safety Communication: FDA Warns About New Impulse-Control Problems
Associated With Mental Health Drug Aripiprazole (Abilify, Abilify Maintena, Aristada), FDA,
May 3, 2016, http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DrugSafety/ucm498662.htm.
3 See Complaint, Miley v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., No. 0:16-cv-67 (D. Minn. Jan. 12, 2016),
ECF No. 1.
4 A Schedule of Actions listing all Abilify compulsive behavior cases currently pending
in federal court is filed herewith.
5 See Civil Action Order, Yun v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., No. BER-L-337-16 (N.J. Super.
Ct. Law. Div. Mar. 18, 2016) (attached as Exhibit A).
2

2

Case 2:16-cv-01597-GMN-PAL Document 18-1 06/24/16 Page 3 of 16 of 26
Case MDL No. 2734 Document 1-1 Filed Filed 08/08/16 Page 9

duplication of efforts by numerous federal courts and the prejudice that could result
from inconsistent rulings on key issues.
ARGUMENT
A.

Standard for Transfer and Consolidation
Title 28, United States Code, section 1407 directs the Judicial Panel on

Multidistrict Litigation to transfer federal civil actions for pretrial coordination or
consolidation when: (1) the cases involve “common questions of fact”; (2) the transfer
is convenient for the parties and witnesses; and (3) the transfer “promote[s] the just
and efficient conduct” of the cases. 28 U.S.C. § 1407(a). The general purpose of
§ 1407 is to “eliminate duplication in discovery, avoid conflicting rulings and
schedules, reduce litigation costs, and save the time and effort of the parties, the
attorneys, the witnesses, and the courts.” Manual for Complex Litigation § 20.131 (4th
ed. Westlaw 2016); see also In re Plumbing Fixture Cases, 298 F. Supp. 484, 491-92
(J.P.M.L. 1968) (Section 1407 is aimed at eliminating “delay, confusion, conflict,
inordinate expense and inefficiency” during the pretrial period). Upon a motion for
transfer, the Panel considers factors including “the progress of discovery, docket
conditions, familiarity of the transferee judge with the relevant issues, and size of the
litigation.” In re: Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Prods. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1230
(9th Cir. 2006).
Also, when there is a significant state court docket regarding similar facts and
theories of liability as the Federal cases that are proposed to be consolidated, this
factor weighs in favor of consolidation as “[c]reation of an MDL likely will make it
3

Case 2:16-cv-01597-GMN-PAL Document 18-1 Filed 08/08/16 Page16 of 26
Case MDL No. 2734 Document 1-1 Filed 06/24/16 Page 4 of 10

easier to coordinate, as needed, pretrial proceedings in both the state and federal
cases, because there will now be just one judge handling the latter.”

In re: Lipitor

(Atorvastatin Calcium) Mktg., Salespractices and Prods. Liab. Litig. (No. II), 997 F. Supp.
2d 1354, 1356 (J.P.M.L. 2014) (citing In re: Plavix Mktg., Sales Practices & Prods. Liab.
Litig. (No. II), 923 F. Supp. 2d 1376, 1378-79 (J.P.M.L. 2013)).
Consent and cooperation of counsel should factor into the Panel’s selection of the
appropriate transferee court. “As a general rule, the Panel likes to accommodate the
parties in selecting an appropriate transferee district. Consequently, if the parties or a
group of them can make a joint recommendation, the Panel may be favorably
impressed.” Judge John G. Heyburn II, A View from the Panel: Part of the Solution, 82
Tulane L. Rev. 2225, 2241 (2008); see, e.g., In re Am. Honda Motor Co., Oil Filter Prods.
Liab. Litig., 416 F. Supp. 2d 1368, 1369 (J.P.M.L. 2006) (“We are persuaded that the
Central District of California is an appropriate transferee forum for this docket, in
accordance with the unanimous support of the parties.”). Plaintiffs’ and Defendants’
counsel agree that consolidating all 26 currently pending federal cases in this litigation,
and any subsequent “tag along” cases involving similar claims, is necessary to promote
the just and efficient adjudication of these actions. Likewise, there is consensus that
Chief Judge Rodgers’s court in the Northern District of Florida, where two of the
Abilify compulsive behavior cases are pending, 6 is the most logical and convenient
venue for these proceedings.

Perez v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., No. 3:16-cv-251 (N.D. Fla.); Viechec v. Bristol-Myers
Squibb Co., No. 3:16-cv-291 (N.D. Fla.).
6

4

Case 2:16-cv-01597-GMN-PAL Document 18-1 Filed 08/08/16 Page16 of 26
Case MDL No. 2734 Document 1-1 Filed 06/24/16 Page 5 of 11

B.

Transfer and Consolidation Are Appropriate in This Matter
1. The Abilify compulsive behavior cases raise common questions of
fact and involve common questions of law.
One factor to consider for transfer and consolidation pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1407 is whether the cases involve “common questions of fact” subject to
discovery. In re: Kugel Mesh Hernia Patch Prods. Liab. Litig., 493 F. Supp. 2d 1371,
1372-73 (J.P.M.L. 2007). The Panel recognizes that pharmaceutical product liability
cases are often particularly well suited for consolidation, because they involve
common questions of fact concerning the “development, testing, manufacturing and
marketing” of the products. In re Accutane Prods. Liab. Litig., 343 F. Supp. 2d 1382, 1383
(J.P.M.L. 2004); see also In re Traysol Prods. Liab. Litig., 545 F. Supp. 2d 1357, 1358
(J.P.M.L. 2008) (common questions regarding the safety profile of a drug and the
manufacturer’s warning); In re Vytorin/Zetia Mktg., Sales Practices & Prods. Liab. Litig.,
543 F. Supp. 2d 1378, 1380 (J.P.M.L. 2008) (common questions regarding the use
and/or marketing of two pharmaceutical drugs).
These cases are all closely related.7 The cases involve the same defendants, the
same basic theories of liability, and the same general factual allegations. All of the

Defendants agree with Plaintiffs that the Abilify compulsive behavior cases should be
coordinated and consolidated for pretrial proceedings in the interest of judicial
efficiency and to avoid inconsistent rulings. Defendants also recognize that there will
be common witnesses and experts as to liability and general causation issues.
Defendants do not wish their joinder in this submission, however, to suggest any
agreement as to which issues will be dispositive in individual cases. Each plaintiff will
have to prove his or her individual case and Defendants believe that specific causation
issues will be critically important, and likely more important, than the general issues.
However one views the cases at this stage, however, coordinated and uniform case
7

5

Case 2:16-cv-01597-GMN-PAL Document 18-1 Filed 08/08/16 Page16 of 26
Case MDL No. 2734 Document 1-1 Filed 06/24/16 Page 6 of 12

cases will involve the same core of lay and expert witness testimony and document
discovery.

These cases also share overlapping issues based on the complaints’

allegations, including:
(1)

Whether and to what extent Abilify is a substantial factor in
causing t he alleged compulsive behavior;

(2)

When Defendants learned of any such connection between Abilify
and the alleged compulsive behavior;

(3)

Whether, and for how long, Defendants concealed any such
knowledge from prescribing physicians;

(4)

Whether Defendants failed to provide adequate a n d t i m e l y
warnings and
instruction concerning the alleged relationship
between Abilify and compulsive behavior;

(5)

Whether Defendants engaged in fraudulent and illegal marketing
practices including, but not limited to, making unsubstantiated claims
regarding the effectiveness and superiority of Abilify; and

(6)

Whether Defendant Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co, Ltd. is subject to
personal jurisdiction in the United States courts.

Separate, unconsolidated pretrial proceedings in the federal cases that have
been and will be filed would greatly increase the costs of this litigation for all parties,
waste judicial resources, and create a significant risk of inconsistent rulings.
2. Pretrial centralization of the Abilify compulsive behavior cases will
enhance the convenience of the litigation as a whole.
Transfer and consolidation is also appropriate when it enhances the
convenience of the litigation as a whole. In re: Library Editions of Children’s Books, 297

management by an experienced judge like Chief Judge Rodgers will be beneficial for all
parties.
6

Case 2:16-cv-01597-GMN-PAL Document 18-1 Filed 08/08/16 Page16 of 26
Case MDL No. 2734 Document 1-1 Filed 06/24/16 Page 7 of 13

F. Supp. 385, 386 (J.P.M.L. 1968). Defendants and Plaintiffs agree that they will both
benefit from pretrial centralization.
Pretrial

centralization

significantly for Defendants.

would

reduce

discovery

requests

and

costs

Defendants would be able to work with one

consolidated set of federal court discovery requests and filings from Plaintiffs’
counsel in these 26 federal cases, rather than negotiating with various counsel and
courts across the country. Without pretrial centralization, discovery would proceed in
a piecemeal and burdensome fashion: defense documents and witnesses would have
to be produced numerous times, and the scope of discovery would have to be
addressed and litigated in more than a dozen courts and in front of different federal
judges.
Pretrial centralization also permits Plaintiffs’ counsel to coordinate their efforts
and share the pretrial workload, which reduces each individual counsel’s costs. The
26 Abilify compulsive behavior cases currently pending in federal court were filed by
four different law firms. Any variance between the manner in which those firms
choose to proceed in the litigation can be reconciled by an MDL court.
Pretrial centralization will also allow Plaintiffs and Defendants to concentrate
their attention and energy on a single federal forum, allowing Plaintiffs and
Defendants to respond more quickly and effectively to opposing counsel and the
transferee court, a n d enhancing the overall efficiency of the litigation. See In re:
Baldwin-United Corp. Litigation, 581 F. Supp. 739, 741 (J.P.M.L. 1984). Centralization
will conserve financial resources of the courts as one federal judge, rather than many
7

Case 2:16-cv-01597-GMN-PAL Document 18-1 Filed 08/08/16 Page16 of 26
Case MDL No. 2734 Document 1-1 Filed 06/24/16 Page 8 of 14

federal judges (currently there are 14 different federal district judges), and will resolve
issues related to discovery, expert witnesses, and other common issues in the cases.
Finally, centralization of the federal cases will make it easier for the New Jersey state
court judge (and potential future state court judges) to coordinate with one federal
judge, as opposed to attempting to coordinate with multiple federal judges across the
country.
Because no case has progressed to the point of trial, and discovery has just
begun, the goals of efficiency and coordination can be met by transferring all 26
pending cases to the MDL judge who may be assigned to this case. Failing to transfer
would force all the parties to take repetitive and/or redundant depositions and other
pretrial discovery, as well as leading to inconsistent and conflicting rulings.
3. Pretrial centralization of the Abilify cases will promote the just and
efficient conduct of these cases.
Centralization of the Abilify compulsive behavior cases will also promote the
just and efficient conduct of this litigation. In evaluating whether proposed pretrial
transfers serve this goal, the Panel often asks whether centralization will prevent
inconsistent or repetitive pretrial rulings. See, e.g., In re Baycol Prods. Liab. Litig., 180 F.
Supp. 2d 1378, 1380 (J.P.M.L. 2001) (centralization would promote justice and efficiency
because it would “eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial
rulings, including with respect to class certification; and conserve the resources of the
parties, their counsel and the judiciary”). For litigation of this magnitude and scope,
centralization before a single court eliminates the possibility of inconsistent rulings

8

Case 2:16-cv-01597-GMN-PAL Document 18-1 Filed 08/08/16 Page16 of 26
Case MDL No. 2734 Document 1-1 Filed 06/24/16 Page 9 of 15

among the Abilify compulsive behavior cases, and therefore, prevents different
treatment of plaintiffs under similar legal theories. Here, for example, Defendant
Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. has filed motions to dismiss for lack of personal
jurisdiction in every case. Federal Judges presiding over these cases, including the
Honorable Ellen L. Hollander in the District of Maryland and the Honorable M.
Douglas Harpool in the Western District of Missouri, have expressed concern over the
possibility of conflicting rulings on these motions.
As another example, in two of the cases courts have entered vastly different
scheduling orders: one requires a very short discovery schedule and sets trial for
February 2017, 8 while the other sets a discovery schedule to prepare for a trial in June
2018. 9 These inconsistent approaches preclude the cases proceeding on parallel tracks
and render informal coordination of discovery impossible.
While the JPML has sometimes indicated that inconsistent rulings may be
unavoidable, centralization will assist the Parties and the judiciary to keep the number
of such potential conflicts to a bare minimum.
C.

The Northern District of Florida is the best transferee forum to efficiently
oversee the federal Abilify compulsive behavior cases
The Parties agree and respectfully urge the Panel to transfer the Abilify

co mpulsiv e be hav io r cases to the No r t h e r n District of Florida for coordinated
and consolidated pretrial proceedings before the Honorable M. Casey Rodgers, t h e
See Civil Minutes - General, Thomas v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., No. 2:16-cv-326 (C.D.
Cal. May 10, 2016), ECF No. 52 (attached as Exhibit B).
9 See Case Management Order, Meyer v. Bristol Myers-Squibb Co., No. 1:16-cv-191 (S.D.
Ind. June 1, 2016), ECF No. 71 (attached as Exhibit C).
8

9

Case 2:16-cv-01597-GMN-PAL Document 18-1 06/24/16 Page 10 of 16 of 26
Case MDL No. 2734 Document 1-1 Filed Filed 08/08/16 Page 16

Chief

Judge

of

that

District,

and

before

whom

two

Abilify

c o m p u l s i v e b e h a v i o r c a s e s a r e p e n d i n g , where they can be efficiently and
justly managed by a court with capacity to handle these cases. The Panel balances a
number of factors in determining the transferee forum, including: the experience,
skill and caseloads of the available judges; the number of cases pending in the
jurisdiction; the convenience of the parties; the location of the witnesses and
evidence; and the minimization of cost and inconvenience to the parties. See In re:
Lipitor (No. II), 997 F. Supp. 2d at 1357; In re: Preferential Drugs Prods. Pricing Antitrust
Litig., 429 F. Supp. 1027, 1029 (J.P.M.L. 1977); In re: Tri-State Crematory Litig., 206 F.
Supp. 1376, 1378 (J.P.M.L. 2002). These factors weigh in favor of the Northern District
of Florida and the Honorable M. Casey Rodgers.
In selecting the appropriate forum, the Panel considers whether a district already
has numerous pending MDLs and will be overtaxed by the addition of a new litigation.
See In re Gator Corp. Software Trademark & Copyright Litig., 259 F. Supp. 2d 1378 (J.P.M.L.
2003). The Northern District of Florida currently has no pending MDLs. The Panel has
stated that if a particular court has no MDLs, that is a clear factor weighing in favor of
transfer to that under-utilized district. E.g., In re Pilgrim’s Pride Fair Labor Standards
Litig., 489 F. Supp. 2d 1381, 1381 (J.P.M.L. 2007); In re Teflon Prods Liab. Litig., 416 F.
Supp. 2d 1364, 1365 (J.P.M.L. 2006); In re FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., Emp.
Practices Litig. (No. II), 381 F. Supp. 2d 1380, 1382 (J.P.M.L. 2005); In re Wireless Tel. Fed.
Cost Recovery Fees Litig., 293 F. Supp. 2d 1378, 1380 (J.P.M.L. 2003); In re Pressure Sensitive
Labelstock Antitrust Litig., 290 F. Supp. 2d 1374, 1376 (J.P.M.L. 2003).
10

Case 2:16-cv-01597-GMN-PAL Document 18-1 06/24/16 Page 11 of 16 of 26
Case MDL No. 2734 Document 1-1 Filed Filed 08/08/16 Page 17

The Northern District of Florida is efficient.

According to the most recent

Federal Court Management Statistics, the Northern District of Florida ranks 24th among
districts in the entire country in median time from filing to disposition in civil cases (8.0
months compared to a nationwide median of 8.6 months). 10 Another “especially useful
basis for comparing the various court dockets” is the percentage of cases over three
years old. D. Herr, Multidistrict Litigation Manual: Practice Before the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation § 6:17, at 210-11 (2009). The Northern District of Florida again
performs well against this measure, with only 3.2% of its civil cases pending for three
years or more (compared to a nationwide average of 12.2%). 11 The Northern District of
Florida is also a convenient forum.

An appropriate transferee court should be

convenient for parties and witnesses. The Pensacola International Airport is served by
five major airlines with flights and connections throughout the United States. 12
The potential scope of this litigation is large. Abilify is widely prescribed. The
recent increase in the number of filed cases and the number of firms filing those cases
reflects the wide reach of this litigation.

The Panel should take advantage of the

Northern District of Florida’s skill and efficiency and consolidate all of the Abilify
compulsive behavior cases in the Northern District of Florida.
Federal Court Management Statistics for Northern District of Florida,
http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics/table/na/federal-court-managementstatistics/2015/12/31-2; United States District Courts—National Judicial Caseload
Profile, http://www.uscourts.gov/file/19995/download.
11Federal
Court Management Statistics for Northern District of Florida,
http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics/table/na/federal-court-managementstatistics/2015/12/31-2; United States District Courts—National Judicial Caseload
Profile, http://www.uscourts.gov/file/19995/download.
12 See Bookings, Pensacola Int’l Airport, http://flypensacola.com/page/Bookings.
10

11

Case 2:16-cv-01597-GMN-PAL Document 18-1 06/24/16 Page 12 of 16 of 26
Case MDL No. 2734 Document 1-1 Filed Filed 08/08/16 Page 18

The Parties respectfully request that the litigation in the Northern District of
Florida be assigned to the Honorable M. Casey Rodgers. Judge Rodgers, who, as noted
above, is currently the Chief Judge of the District, has over 13 years of experience as a
federal judge. She has served as a District Court Judge since 2003, following her term as
a United States Magistrate Judge. She is currently assigned the two Abilify compulsive
behavior cases pending in the Northern District of Florida. During her tenure, she has
presided over multiple cases remanded from multidistrict litigations involving complex
product liability actions, see, e.g., Krause v. Novartis Pharms. Corp., No. 1:06-cv-12 (N.D.
Fla.); Leroy v. Medtronic, Inc., No. 3:14-cv-284 (N.D. Fla.), as well as numerous class
actions, see, e.g., Hall v. AETNA Life Insur. Co., No. 3:09-cv-222 (N.D. Fla.), Sacred Heart
Health Systems, Inc. v. Humana Military Healthcare Servs., No. 3:07-cv-62 (N.D. Fla.); AllSouth Subcontractors, Inc. v. Amerigas Propane, Inc., No. 3:15-cv-9 (N.D. Fla.).
Accordingly, Plaintiffs and Defendants respectfully request that the Panel
transfer the Abilify compulsive behavior cases to the Northern District of Florida for
coordinated and consolidated pretrial proceedings before the Honorable M. Casey
Rodgers.
D.

Expedited Hearing
The Parties respectfully request that the Panel hear oral argument on this motion

at the hearing scheduled for July 28, 2016, in Seattle, Washington. Because Plaintiffs
and Defendants in all 26 Abilify compulsive behavior cases pending in the federal
courts join in this motion, no further papers (such as an opposition or reply) will be
filed. Since briefing is completed with today’s filing, the motion is ripe to be disposed
12

Case 2:16-cv-01597-GMN-PAL Document 18-1 06/24/16 Page 13 of 16 of 26
Case MDL No. 2734 Document 1-1 Filed Filed 08/08/16 Page 19

of at the July 28 hearing. Expedited hearing would permit the Panel to rule before any
of the cases progress to a point at which coordination and consolidation might present
some difficulty. The inconsistent treatment of the cases by the federal judges before
whom they are currently pending, as exemplified by the vastly different scheduling
orders discussed above, render expedited consideration of this motion in the interest of
judicial efficiency. 13
CONCLUSION
For the aforementioned reasons, the Parties respectfully request that the Panel
order coordinated and consolidated pretrial proceedings for the Abilify compulsive
behavior litigation, and respectfully request that the Panel transfer these cases to
the Northern District of Florida.
Dated: June 24, 2016

Respectfully submitted,
By: /s/ Gary L. Wilson
Gary L. Wilson
Munir R. Meghjee
Megan J. McKenzie
ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
800 LaSalle Avenue, Suite 2800
Minneapolis, MN 55402-2015
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs/Movants Denise Miley and
Brad Miley

The Parties will concurrently file a joint motion for expedited hearing pursuant to
Panel Rule 6.3.
13

13

Case 2:16-cv-01597-GMN-PAL Document 18-1 06/24/16 Page 14 of 16 of 26
Case MDL No. 2734 Document 1-1 Filed Filed 08/08/16 Page 20

Dated: June 24, 2016

By: /s/ Kristian Rasmussen
Kristian Rasmussen
CORY WATSON, P.C.
2131 Magnolia Avenue, Suite 200
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Dated: June 24, 2016

By: /s/ J. Gordon Rudd Jr.
J. Gordon Rudd Jr.
ZIMMERMAN REED
80 South Eighth Street, Suite 100
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Dated: June 24, 2016

By: /s/ George T. Williamson
George T. Williamson
FARR, FARR, EMERICH, HACKETT, CARR
& HOLMES, P.A.
99 Nesbit Street
Punta Gorda, FL 33950
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

14

Case 2:16-cv-01597-GMN-PAL Document 18-1 06/24/16 Page 15 of 16 of 26
Case MDL No. 2734 Document 1-1 Filed Filed 08/08/16 Page 21

Dated: June 24, 2016

By: /s/ Anand Agneshwar
Anand Agneshwar
ARNOLD & PORTER LLP
399 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10022-4690
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
Matthew Eisenstein
ARNOLD & PORTER LLP
601 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
matthew.eisenstein@ aporter.com
Barry J. Thompson
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
Lauren S. Colton
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
100 International Drive, Suite 200
Baltimore, MD 21202
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendant Bristol-Myers Squibb
Company

15

Case 2:16-cv-01597-GMN-PAL Document 18-1 06/24/16 Page 16 of 16 of 26
Case MDL No. 2734 Document 1-1 Filed Filed 08/08/16 Page 22

Dated: June 24, 2016

By: /s/Matthew A. Campell
Matthew A. Campbell
WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
1700 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
Luke A. Connelly
WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
200 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10166
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendants Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co.,
Ltd. and Otsuka America Pharmaceutical, Inc.

16

Case 2:16-cv-01597-GMN-PAL Document 18-1 Filed 08/08/16 Page 4 of 26
Case MDL No. 2734 Document 1-5 Filed 06/24/16 Page 1 of 23

BEFORE THE UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
MDL-___ – IN RE: ABILIFY COMPULSIVE BEHAVIOR PRODUCTS
LIABILITY LITIGATION
SCHEDULE OF ACTIONS
Court

Civil Action
No.

Plaintiff:
Daniel F. Thomas
Defendants:
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company; Otsuka
Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.; Otsuka America
Pharmaceutical, Inc.

Central District
of California

2:16-cv-326

Plaintiffs:
Marsha Gibson, R. Dale Gibson
Defendants:
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company; Otsuka
Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.; Otsuka America
Pharmaceutical, Inc.

Central District
of California

2:16-cv-3930

Plaintiff:
Susanna Tsiryulnikova
Defendants:
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company; Otsuka
Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.; Otsuka America
Pharmaceutical, Inc.

Central District
of California

2:16-cv-4046

Plaintiffs:
Brenda Sears, Robert Sears
Defendants:
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company; Otsuka
Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.; Otsuka America
Pharmaceutical, Inc.

Eastern District
of California

1:16-cv-65

Hon. Lawrence J.
O’Neill

Plaintiffs:
Karen Reynolds, Delmar Scott Reynolds
Defendants:
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company; Otsuka
Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.; Otsuka America
Pharmaceutical, Inc.

Eastern District
of California

1:16-cv-357

Hon. Lawrence J.
O’Neill

Plaintiff:
Athalean Harper-Mosley
Defendants:
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company; Otsuka
Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.; Otsuka America
Pharmaceutical, Inc.

Eastern District
of California

1:16-cv-609

Hon. Lawrence J.
O’Neill

Case Captions

Judge

Hon. Percy Anderson

Hon. S. James Otero

Hon. Percy Anderson

Case 2:16-cv-01597-GMN-PAL Document 18-1 Filed 08/08/16 Page 4 of 26
Case MDL No. 2734 Document 1-5 Filed 06/24/16 Page 2 of 24

Plaintiffs:
Travis Vickers, Stacey Vickers
Defendants:
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company; Otsuka
Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.; Otsuka America
Pharmaceutical, Inc.

Eastern District
of California

1:16-cv-737

Plaintiff:
Stephanie Pamintuan
Defendants:
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company; Otsuka
Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.; Otsuka America
Pharmaceutical, Inc.

Northern District
of California

3:16-cv-254

Plaintiff:
Wilette Reese
Defendants:
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company; Otsuka
Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.; Otsuka America
Pharmaceutical, Inc.

Middle District
of Florida

8:16-cv-116

Hon. Steven D.
Merryday

Plaintiff:
Ben Naiven Bowman
Defendants:
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company; Otsuka
Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.; Otsuka America
Pharmaceutical, Inc.

Middle District
of Florida

8:16-cv-117

Hon. James D.
Whittemore

Plaintiff:
Gary R. Clarke
Defendants:
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company; Otsuka
Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.; Otsuka America
Pharmaceutical, Inc.

Middle District
of Florida

2:16-cv-447

Plaintiff:
Rita Perez
Defendants:
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company; Otsuka
Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.; Otsuka America
Pharmaceutical, Inc..

Northern District
of Florida

3:16-cv-251

Plaintiffs:
David Viechec, Cassie Viechec
Defendants:
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company; Otsuka
Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.; Otsuka America
Pharmaceutical, Inc.

Northern District
of Florida

3:16-cv-291

-2-

Hon. Lawrence J.
O’Neill

Hon. Haywood S.
Gilliam, Jr.

Not Yet Assigned

Hon. M. Casey Rodgers

Hon. M. Casey Rodgers

Case 2:16-cv-01597-GMN-PAL Document 18-1 Filed 08/08/16 Page 4 of 26
Case MDL No. 2734 Document 1-5 Filed 06/24/16 Page 3 of 25

Plaintiff:
Nicholas T. Meyer
Defendants:
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company; Otsuka
Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.; Otsuka America
Pharmaceutical, Inc.

Southern District
of Indiana

1:16-cv-191

Plaintiffs:
Diana Kinder, Brooke Chapman
Defendants:
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company; Otsuka
Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.; Otsuka America
Pharmaceutical, Inc.

District
of Maryland

1:16-cv-170

Plaintiff:
James R. Davis
Defendants:
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company; Otsuka
Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.; Otsuka America
Pharmaceutical, Inc.

District
of Maryland

1:16-cv-171

Plaintiff:
Matthew T. Schaap
Defendants:
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company; Otsuka
Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.; Otsuka America
Pharmaceutical, Inc.

District
of Maryland

1:16-cv-172

Plaintiffs:
Stephen Butler, Harlen Castillo
Defendants:
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company; Otsuka
Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.; Otsuka America
Pharmaceutical, Inc.

District
of Maryland

1:16-cv-173

Plaintiffs:
Denise Miley, Brad Miley
Defendants:
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company; Otsuka
Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.; Otsuka America
Pharmaceutical, Inc.

District
of Minnesota

0:16-cv-67

Plaintiff:
Thomas Leland
Defendants:
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company; Otsuka
Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.; Otsuka America
Pharmaceutical, Inc..

Western District
of Missouri

6:16-cv-3023

-3-

Hon. Sarah Evans Barker

Hon. Ellen L. Hollander

Hon. Ellen L. Hollander

Hon. Ellen L. Hollander

Hon. Ellen L. Hollander

Hon. Patrick J. Schiltz

Hon. M. Douglas
Harpool

Case 2:16-cv-01597-GMN-PAL Document 18-1 Filed 08/08/16 Page 4 of 26
Case MDL No. 2734 Document 1-5 Filed 06/24/16 Page 4 of 26

Plaintiffs:
Angel Clark, Richard Clark
Defendants:
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company; Otsuka
Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.; Otsuka America
Pharmaceutical, Inc.

District
of New Jersey

3:16-cv-1313

Plaintiff:
Debbra Cottrell
Defendants:
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company; Otsuka
Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.; Otsuka America
Pharmaceutical, Inc..

District
of New Jersey

3:16-cv-1802

Plaintiff:
Geneva Johnson
Defendants:
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company; Otsuka
Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.; Otsuka America
Pharmaceutical, Inc..

District
of New Jersey

3:16-cv-1841

Plaintiffs:
Marc S. Tripler, Dawn M. Tripler
Defendants:
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company; Otsuka
Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.; Otsuka America
Pharmaceutical, Inc.

Eastern District
of Pennsylvania

2:16-cv-244

Plaintiffs:
Joseph Edgar, Merideth Edgar
Defendants:
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company; Otsuka
Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.; Otsuka America
Pharmaceutical, Inc.

Middle District
of Pennsylvania

1:16-cv-654

Hon. Christopher C.
Conner

Plaintiffs:
Joanna Bowman, John Bowman, Jr.
Defendants:
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company; Otsuka
Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.; Otsuka America
Pharmaceutical, Inc.

Middle District
of Pennsylvania

1:16-cv-1140

Hon. Christopher C.
Conner

-4-

Hon. Michael A. Shipp

Hon. Michael A. Shipp

Hon. Michael A. Shipp

Hon. Petrese B. Tucker

Case 2:16-cv-01597-GMN-PAL Document 18-2 Filed 08/08/16 Page 1 of 3

EXHIBIT B

Case 2:16-cv-01597-GMN-PAL Document Filed 07/11/16 Page 1 of 1 2 of 3
Case MDL No. 2734 Document 17 18-2 Filed 08/08/16 Page

BEFORE THE UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL
ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
MDL No. 2734

IN RE: ABILIFY (ARIPIPRAZOLE)
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION

NOTICE OF RELATED ACTIONS

In accordance with the Rules of Procedure for the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation Plaintiffs David Stirling, Migdalia Stirling, Renee Foley and
Brandon Foley write to notify you of the potential related actions listed on the attached
Schedule of Actions. Docket sheets and complaints are attached.
Dated: July 11, 2016

Respectfully submitted,
ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
By: /s/Megan McKenzie
Gary L. Wilson, (139358)
Munir R. Meghjee, (301437)
Megan J. McKenzie, (0388081)
800 LaSalle Avenue
Suite 2800
Minneapolis, MN 55402
612 349 8500
Email:
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Molly Adams, Eric Adams,
Richard Campbell, and Courtney Campbell

1

Case Case MDL No. 2734 Document 17-1 18-2 Filed 08/08/16 Page13 of 3
2:16-cv-01597-GMN-PAL Document Filed 07/11/16 Page 1 of

BEFORE THE UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL
ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
MDL No. 2734

IN RE: ABILIFY (ARIPIPRAZOLE)
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION

NOTICE OF RELATED ACTIONS
SCHEDULE OF ACTIONS

Case Captions

Court

Civil Action
No.

Judge

Plaintiffs:
David Stirling and Migdalia Stirling
Defendants:
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company; Otsuka
Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.; Otsuka America
Pharmaceutical, Inc.

District of Nevada

2:16-cv-01597- Hon. Gloria M. Navarro
GMN-PAL

Plaintiffs:
Renee Foley and Brandon Foley
Defendants:
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company; Otsuka
Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.; Otsuka America
Pharmaceutical, Inc.

District of Nevada

2:16-cv-01596APG-VCF
Hon. Andrew P. Gordon

2

Case 2:16-cv-01597-GMN-PAL Document 18-3 Filed 08/08/16 Page 1 of 9

EXHIBIT C

CM/ECF Western District of Missouri-History/Documents Query
Page 1 of 8
Case 2:16-cv-01597-GMN-PAL Document 18-3 Filed 08/08/16 Page 2 of 9

6:16-cv-03023-MDH Leland v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company et al
M. Douglas Harpool, presiding
Date filed: 01/20/2016
Date of last filing: 06/30/2016

History
Doc.
No.

1

2

3

4

5

6

Dates

Description

Filed & Entered:
01/20/2016 NOTICE OF MAGISTRATE ASSIGNMENT
Docket Text: NOTICE OF MAGISTRATE ASSIGNMENT sent via electronic mail to counsel for
Plaintiff. This is a docket entry only. No document is attached. Magistrate Return due by
2/16/2016. (Burch, C. Steve)
Filed & Entered:
01/20/2016 Complaint
Docket Text: COMPLAINT against Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Otsuka America
Pharmaceutical, Inc., Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. filed by Andrew J. Kabat on behalf of
Thomas Leland. Filing fee $400, receipt number 0866-4674553. Service due by 4/22/2016.
(Attachments: # (1) Civil Cover Sheet)(Kabat, Andrew)
Filed & Entered:
01/20/2016 Notice of MAPN
Docket Text: NOTICE OF INCLUSION FOR MEDIATION AND ASSESSMENT
PROGRAM (MAP). REVIEW NOTICE AND MAP GENERAL ORDER CAREFULLY
FOR IMPORTANT CHANGES, DEADLINES AND REQUIREMENTS.
Notice of MAP assignment to an outside mediator. (Burch, C. Steve)
Filed & Entered:
01/21/2016 Summons Issued
Docket Text: SUMMONS ISSUED as to Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Otsuka America
Pharmaceutical, Inc., Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.. (Anderson, Christy)
Filed & Entered:
01/29/2016 NOTICE OF REASSIGNMENT
Docket Text: NOTICE OF REASSIGNMENT from Magistrate Judge John T. Maughmer to
District Judge M. Douglas Harpool. **The new case number is 16-cv-03023-S-MDH.**
(Martin, Jan)
Filed & Entered:
02/05/2016 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice
Terminated:
02/05/2016
Docket Text: Motion to allow Megan J. McKenzie to appear pro hac vice (Pro Hac fee $50 receipt
number CHECK966185) filed by Andrew J. Kabat on behalf of Thomas Leland. (Anderson,
Christy)
Filed & Entered:
02/05/2016 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice
Terminated:
02/05/2016
Docket Text: Motion to allow Gary L. Wilson to appear pro hac vice (Pro Hac fee $50 receipt
number CHECK966184) filed by Andrew J. Kabat on behalf of Thomas Leland. (Anderson,
Christy)
Filed & Entered:
02/05/2016 Order on Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice

https://ecf.mowd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/HistDocQry.pl?71081925684451-L_1_0-1

6/30/2016

CM/ECF Western District of Missouri-History/Documents Query
Page 2 of 8
Case 2:16-cv-01597-GMN-PAL Document 18-3 Filed 08/08/16 Page 3 of 9

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

Docket Text: ORDER granting [4] and [5] motions to appear pro hac vice approved by Clerk of
Court. Attorney Megan J. McKenzie and Attorney Gary L. Wilson for Thomas Leland allowed to
appear pro hac vice. This entry will serve as authorization for the pro hac participation by the
attorney. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached.(Anderson, Christy)
Filed & Entered:
02/12/2016 Return of Service of Complaint Executed
Docket Text: RETURN OF SERVICE of complaint executed by Thomas Leland. Bristol-Myers
Squibb Company served on 1/25/2016, answer due 2/16/2016. (McKenzie, Megan)
Filed & Entered:
02/12/2016 Return of Service of Complaint Executed
Docket Text: RETURN OF SERVICE of complaint executed by Thomas Leland. Otsuka
Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. served on 1/27/2016, answer due 2/17/2016. (McKenzie, Megan)
Filed & Entered:
02/12/2016 Return of Service of Complaint Executed
Docket Text: RETURN OF SERVICE of complaint executed by Thomas Leland. Otsuka America
Pharmaceutical, Inc. served on 1/27/2016, answer due 2/17/2016. (McKenzie, Megan)
Filed & Entered:
02/15/2016 Notice of Appearance
Docket Text: NOTICE of appearance by John L. Hayob on behalf of Otsuka America
Pharmaceutical, Inc., Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. (Attorney John L. Hayob added to party
Otsuka America Pharmaceutical, Inc.(pty:dft), Attorney John L. Hayob added to party Otsuka
Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.(pty:dft))(Hayob, John)
Filed & Entered:
02/15/2016 Motion for Extension of Time
Terminated:
02/16/2016
Docket Text: Joint MOTION for extension of time filed by John L. Hayob on behalf of Otsuka
America Pharmaceutical, Inc., Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.. Suggestions in
opposition/response due by 3/3/2016 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Hayob, John)
Filed & Entered:
02/16/2016 Order on Motion for Extension of Time
Docket Text: ORDER granting [11] motion for extension of time. Defendants shall answer or
otherwise respond to Plaintiff's Complaint on or before 3/17/2016. Plaintiff shall have an
additional 30 days from the time prescribed to respond to any motion filed by Defendants in
response to the Complaint. Signed on 2/16/2016 by District Judge M. Douglas Harpool. This is a
TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached.(Hance, Breanna)
Filed & Entered:
02/17/2016 Rule 16 Notice
Docket Text: Rule 16 Notice. Proposed scheduling order due by 4/4/2016. Rule 26 conference
due by 3/21/2016. Signed on 2/17/16 by District Judge M. Douglas Harpool. (View, Pat)
Filed & Entered:
03/02/2016 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice
Terminated:
03/02/2016
Docket Text: Motion to allow Munir Reza Meghjee to appear pro hac vice (Pro Hac fee $50
receipt number 981826) filed by Andrew J. Kabat on behalf of Thomas Leland. (Attachments: #
(1) Certificate of Good Standing - MN, # (2) Certificate of Good Standing - CO)(Schroeppel,
Kerry)
Filed & Entered:
03/02/2016 Order on Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice
Docket Text: ORDER granting [14] Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice approved by Clerk of Court.
Attorney Munir R Meghjee for Thomas Leland allowed to appear pro hac vice. This entry will
serve as authorization for the pro hac participation by the attorney. This is a TEXT ONLY
ENTRY. No document is attached.(Schroeppel, Kerry)
Filed & Entered:
03/03/2016 Notice of Appearance

https://ecf.mowd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/HistDocQry.pl?71081925684451-L_1_0-1

6/30/2016

CM/ECF Western District of Missouri-History/Documents Query
Page 3 of 8
Case 2:16-cv-01597-GMN-PAL Document 18-3 Filed 08/08/16 Page 4 of 9

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Docket Text: NOTICE of appearance by Michael J. Patton on behalf of Bristol-Myers Squibb
Company (Attorney Michael J. Patton added to party Bristol-Myers Squibb Company(pty:dft))
(Patton, Michael)
Filed & Entered:
03/03/2016 Disclosure of corporate interests
Docket Text: DISCLOSURE OF CORPORATE INTERESTS filed by Michael J. Patton on
behalf of Defendant Bristol-Myers Squibb Company. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit Corporate
Affiliations)(Patton, Michael)
Filed & Entered:
03/03/2016 Notice of Appearance
Docket Text: NOTICE of appearance by Jeffrey T. Davis on behalf of Bristol-Myers Squibb
Company (Attorney Jeffrey T. Davis added to party Bristol-Myers Squibb Company(pty:dft))
(Davis, Jeffrey)
Filed & Entered:
03/03/2016 Disclosure of corporate interests
Docket Text: DISCLOSURE OF CORPORATE INTERESTS filed by John L. Hayob on behalf
of Defendant Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd..(Hayob, John)
Filed & Entered:
03/03/2016 Disclosure of corporate interests
Docket Text: DISCLOSURE OF CORPORATE INTERESTS filed by John L. Hayob on behalf
of Defendant Otsuka America Pharmaceutical, Inc..(Hayob, John)
Filed & Entered:
03/04/2016 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice
Terminated:
03/07/2016
Docket Text: Motion to allow Barry J. Thompson to appear pro hac vice (Pro Hac fee $50 receipt
number 0866-4735821) filed by Michael J. Patton on behalf of Bristol-Myers Squibb Company.
(Patton, Michael)
Filed & Entered:
03/04/2016 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice
Terminated:
03/07/2016
Docket Text: Motion to allow Lauren Schultz Colton to appear pro hac vice (Pro Hac fee $50
receipt number 0866-4735833) filed by Michael J. Patton on behalf of Bristol-Myers Squibb
Company. (Patton, Michael)
Filed & Entered:
03/07/2016 Order on Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice
Docket Text: ORDER granting [21] motion to appear pro hac vice approved by Clerk of Court.
Attorney Barry J. Thompson for Bristol-Myers Squibb Company allowed to appear pro hac vice.
This entry will serve as authorization for the pro hac participation by the attorney. This is a TEXT
ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached.(Burch, C. Steve)
Filed & Entered:
03/07/2016 Order on Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice
Docket Text: ORDER granting [22] motion to appear pro hac vice approved by Clerk of Court.
Attorney Lauren Schultz Colton for Bristol-Myers Squibb Company allowed to appear pro hac
vice. This entry will serve as authorization for the pro hac participation by the attorney. This is a
TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is attached.(Burch, C. Steve)
Filed & Entered:
03/17/2016 Answer to Complaint
Docket Text: Defendant Bristol-Myers Squibb Company's ANSWER to Complaint with Jury
Demand on behalf of Bristol-Myers Squibb Company.(Patton, Michael)
Filed & Entered:
03/17/2016 Answer to Complaint
Docket Text: Defendant Otsuka America Pharmaceutical, Inc.'s ANSWER to [1] Complaint, with
Jury Demand on behalf of Otsuka America Pharmaceutical, Inc..(Hayob, John)

https://ecf.mowd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/HistDocQry.pl?71081925684451-L_1_0-1

6/30/2016

CM/ECF Western District of Missouri-History/Documents Query
Page 4 of 8
Case 2:16-cv-01597-GMN-PAL Document 18-3 Filed 08/08/16 Page 5 of 9

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

Filed & Entered:
03/17/2016 Motion to Dismiss/Lack of Jurisdiction
Docket Text: MOTION to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction filed by John L. Hayob on behalf of
Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 4/4/2016 unless
otherwise directed by the court. (Hayob, John)
Filed & Entered:
03/17/2016 Suggestions in Support of Motion
Docket Text: SUGGESTIONS in support re [27] MOTION to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction filed
by John L. Hayob on behalf of Defendant Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.. (Related document(s)
[27]) (Hayob, John)
Filed & Entered:
03/30/2016 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice
Terminated:
03/30/2016
Docket Text: Motion to allow Eric M. Goldstein to appear pro hac vice (Pro Hac fee $50 receipt
number 0866-4770334) filed by John L. Hayob on behalf of Otsuka America Pharmaceutical,
Inc., Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.. (Hayob, John)
Filed & Entered:
03/30/2016 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice
Terminated:
03/30/2016
Docket Text: Motion to allow Luke A. Connelly to appear pro hac vice (Pro Hac fee $50 receipt
number 0866-4770354) filed by John L. Hayob on behalf of Otsuka America Pharmaceutical,
Inc., Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.. (Hayob, John)
Filed:
03/30/2016 Order on Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice
Entered:
04/04/2016
Docket Text: ORDER granting [30] motion to appear pro hac vice approved by Clerk of Court.
Attorney Luke A Connelly for Otsuka America Pharmaceutical, Inc.,Luke A Connelly for Otsuka
Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. allowed to appear pro hac vice. This entry will serve as authorization for
the pro hac participation by the attorney. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No document is
attached.(Schroeppel, Kerry)
Filed:
03/30/2016 Order on Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice
Entered:
04/04/2016
Docket Text: ORDER granting [29] motion to appear pro hac vice approved by Clerk of Court.
Attorney Eric M. Goldstein for Otsuka America Pharmaceutical, Inc.,Eric M. Goldstein for
Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. allowed to appear pro hac vice. This entry will serve as
authorization for the pro hac participation by the attorney. This is a TEXT ONLY ENTRY. No
document is attached.(Schroeppel, Kerry)
Filed & Entered:
04/04/2016 Motion for Extension of Time
Terminated:
04/04/2016
Docket Text: Joint MOTION for extension of time to File Proposed Scheduling Order filed by
Michael J. Patton on behalf of Bristol-Myers Squibb Company. Suggestions in
opposition/response due by 4/21/2016 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Patton, Michael)
Filed & Entered:
04/04/2016 Order on Motion for Extension of Time
Docket Text: ORDER granting [33] motion for extension of time. Proposed scheduling order due
by 5/4/2016. Signed on 4/4/2016 by District Judge M. Douglas Harpool. This is a TEXT ONLY
ENTRY. No document is attached.(Hance, Breanna)
Filed & Entered:
04/22/2016 Affidavit
Docket Text: AFFIDAVIT re [28] Suggestions in Support of Motion (CORRECTED) by Otsuka
Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.. (Related document(s)[28]) (Goldstein, Eric)

https://ecf.mowd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/HistDocQry.pl?71081925684451-L_1_0-1

6/30/2016

CM/ECF Western District of Missouri-History/Documents Query
Page 5 of 8
Case 2:16-cv-01597-GMN-PAL Document 18-3 Filed 08/08/16 Page 6 of 9

36

37

38

39

40

Filed & Entered:
04/30/2016 Suggestions in Opposition to Motion
Docket Text: SUGGESTIONS in opposition re [27] MOTION to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction
filed by Munir R Meghjee on behalf of Plaintiff Thomas Leland. Reply suggestions due by
5/19/2016 unless otherwise directed by the court (Attachments: # (1) Declaration of Megan J.
McKenzie, # (2) Exhibit 1 Missouri Medicaid State Drug Utilization Data, # (3) Exhibit 2 U.S.
Abilify Label, # (4) Exhibit 3 FDA Complaint, Otsuka Pharm. Co., Ltd. v. Burwell, No. 8:15-cv00852-GJH, # (5) Exhibit 4 Patent Complaint, Otsuka Pharm. Co., Ltd. v. Sandoz, Inc., No. 3:07cv-01000, # (6) Exhibit 5 Leland Pharmacy Records, # (7) Exhibit 6 About ProPublicas Dollars
for Docs database, # (8) Exhibit 7 Data ProPublicas Dollars for Docs database, # (9) Exhibit 8
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Open Payments, # (10) Exhibit 9 Thomas v. BristolMyers Squibb Co., et al., No. 2:16-cv-00326-PA-AGR, # (11) Exhibit 10 Otsuka Holdings Co.,
Ltd.s Fiscal Year 2014 Financial Results Presentation, # (12) Exhibit 11 Otsuka Pharm. Co., Ltd.
v. Sandoz, Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 132595, # (13) Exhibit 12 Corporate Profile_Otsuka
Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., # (14) Exhibit 13 2015 Foreign Profit Corporation Annual Report, #
(15) Exhibit 14 Application of a Foreign Corporation to Transact Business in Florida, # (16)
Exhibit 15 Florida 2009 Annual Report, # (17) Exhibit 16 Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. Press
Release_Board Members, # (18) Exhibit 17 PharmaVoice Creating A New Culture Hiromi
Yoshikawa, # (19) Exhibit 18 November 2002 Abilify Approval Packet, # (20) Exhibit 19 August
28, 2003 FDA Letter, # (21) Exhibit 20 Commercialization Agreement for Aripiprazole, # (22)
Exhibit 21 Pre-Trial Order, No. 3:07-cv-01000, # (23) Exhibit 22 Post-Trial Proposed Findings of
Fact and Conclusions of Law, ECF 381, # (24) Exhibit 23 Fed. Ins. Co. v. Steris Corp., 2012 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 150651, # (25) Exhibit 24 Acorda Therapeutics Inc. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.,
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 4942, # (26) Exhibit 25 Estate of Moore v. Carroll, 2016 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 12567, # (27) Exhibit 26 Betancourt v. Endo Pharms., Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
184962, # (28) Exhibit 27 Blair v. Genentech, Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123720)(Related
document(s)[27]) (Meghjee, Munir)
Filed & Entered:
04/30/2016 Motion for Discovery
Terminated:
05/25/2016
Docket Text: MOTION for discovery and Suggestions in Support of Jurisdictional Discovery
filed by Munir R Meghjee on behalf of Thomas Leland. Suggestions in opposition/response due
by 5/19/2016 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Meghjee, Munir)
Filed & Entered:
05/02/2016 Notice of Hearing
Docket Text: NOTICE OF HEARING - This is the official notice for this hearing. Telephone
Conference set for 5/10/2016 02:00 PM before District Judge M. Douglas Harpool. The parties
shall be prepared to discuss the pending motion to dismiss and motion for discovery as well as the
status of potential transfer to MDL. Plaintiff shall initiate call with Defendants and then, once all
parties are on the line, call into Chambers at 417-865-3741.(Hance, Breanna)
Filed & Entered:
05/04/2016 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice
Terminated:
05/09/2016
Docket Text: Motion to allow Matthew Eisenstein to appear pro hac vice (Pro Hac fee $50 receipt
number 0866-4816089) filed by Michael J. Patton on behalf of Bristol-Myers Squibb Company.
(Patton, Michael)
Filed & Entered:
05/04/2016 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice
Terminated:
05/09/2016
Docket Text: Motion to allow Anand Agneshwar to appear pro hac vice (Pro Hac fee $50 receipt
number 0866-4816108) filed by Michael J. Patton on behalf of Bristol-Myers Squibb Company.
(Patton, Michael)

https://ecf.mowd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/HistDocQry.pl?71081925684451-L_1_0-1

6/30/2016

C M / EC FW e s t e r n D i s t r i c t o f M i s s o u r i - H i s t o r y / D o c u m e n t s Q u e r y
Pa g e 6 o f 8
Case 2:16-cv-01597-GMN-PAL Document 18-3 Filed 08/08/16 Page 7 of 9

4 1

4 2

4 3

4 4

4 5

4 6

4 7

4 8

Filed & Entered:
0 5 /0 4 /2 0 1 6 M o tio n to A p p e a r Pro H a c V ic e
Terminated:
0 5 /0 9 /2 0 1 6
Docket Text: M o t i o n t o a l l o w M a t t h e w A . C a m p b e l l t o a p p e a r p r o h a c v i c e ( P r o H a c f e e $ 5 0
r e c e i p t n u m b e r 0 8 6 6 - 4 8 1 6 9 6 3 ) f i l e d b y Jh n L . H a y o b o n b e h a l f o f O t s u k a A m e r i c a
o
P h a r m a c e u t i c a l , I c . , O t s u k a P h a r m a c e u t i c a l C o . , L t d . . ( H a y o b , Jh n )
n
o
Filed & Entered:
0 5 /0 4 /2 0 1 6 Pr o p o s e d S c h e d u lin g Or d e r
Docket Text: Ji n t P RO P O S E D S C H E D U L I G O RD E R b y B r i s t o l - M y e r s S q u i b b C o m p a n y .
o
N
( D a v i s , Jf f r e y ) ( A d d i t i o n a l a t t a c h m e n t ( s ) a d d e d o n 5 / 6 / 2 0 1 6 : # ( 1 ) E x h i b i t P r o p o s e d Ji n t
e
o
S c h e d u l i n g O r d e r ) ( Ke l l e r , Ja n n e ) .
e
Filed & Entered:
0 5 /0 5 /2 0 1 6 No tic e o f f ilin g
Docket Text: N O T I E o f f i l i n g Exhibit A to Proposed Joint Scheduling Order b y B r i s t o l - M y e r s
C
S q u i b b C o m p a n y r e [ 4 2 ] P r o p o s e d S c h e d u l i n g O r d e r ( D a v i s , Jf f r e y )
e
Filed & Entered:
0 5 /0 6 /2 0 1 6 No tic e o f d o c k e t m o d if ic a tio n
Docket Text: N O T I E O F D O C KE T M O D I C A T I N . A m o d i f i c a t i o n h a s b e e n m a d e t o t h e
C
FI
O
d o c u m e n t f i l e d a s D o c u m e n t N o . 4 3 , E x h i b i t A t o P r o p o s e d Ji n t S c h e d u l i n g O r d e r . T h e N o t i c e
o
o f Fi l i n g w h i c h w a s f i l e d a s a s e p a r a t e d o c u m e n t h a s b e e n d e l e t e d a n d a t t a c h e d t o d o c u m e n t N o .
4 2 t o w h i c h i t i s a n e x h i b i t . T h i s i s a t e x t e n t r y o n l y - n o d o c u m e n t i s a t t a c h e d . ( Ke l l e r , Ja n n e )
e
Filed & Entered:
0 5 /0 9 /2 0 1 6 Or d e r o n M o tio n to A p p e a r Pr o H a c V ic e
Docket Text: O RD E R g r a n t i n g [ 4 1 ] m o t i o n t o a p p e a r p r o h a c v i c e a p p r o v e d b y C l e r k o f C o u r t .
A tto r n e y M a tth e w A . C a m p b e ll f o r Ots u k a A m e r ic a Ph a r m a c e u tic a l, Ic .,M a tth e w A . C a m p b e ll
n
f o r Ots u k a Ph a r m a c e u tic a l C o ., Ltd . a llo w e d to a p p e a r p r o h a c v ic e . T h is e n tr y w ill s e r v e a s
a u t h o r i z a t i o n f o r t h e p r o h a c p a r t i c i p a t i o n b y t h e a t t o r n e y . C M / E C F Re g i s t r a t i o n f o r m e m a i l e d t o
a t t o r n e y C a m p b e l l . S i g n e d o n 5 / 0 9 / 2 0 1 6 b y C l e r k o f C o u r t . T h i s i s a T E X T O N L Y E N T RY . N o
d o c u m e n t i s a t t a c h e d . ( Ke l l e r , Ja n n e )
e
Filed & Entered:
0 5 /0 9 /2 0 1 6 Or d e r o n M o tio n to A p p e a r Pr o H a c V ic e
Docket Text: O RD E R g r a n t i n g [ 3 9 ] m o t i o n t o a p p e a r p r o h a c v i c e b y M a t t h e w E i s e n s t e i n
a p p ro v e d b y C le rk o f C o u rt. T h is e n try w ill s e rv e a s a u th o riz a tio n fo r th e p ro h a c p a rtic ip a tio n b y
th e a tto rn e y . ; g ra n tin g [4 0 ] m o tio n to a p p e a r p ro h a c v ic e b y A n a n d A g n e s h w a r a p p ro v e d b y
C le rk o f C o u rt. T h is e n try w ill s e rv e a s a u th o riz a tio n fo r th e p ro h a c p a rtic ip a tio n b y th e a tto rn e y .
C M / E C F Re g i s t r a t i o n f o r m e - m a i l e d t o A t t o r n e y M a t t h e w E i s e n s t e i n a n d A t t o r n e y A n a n d
A g n e s h w a r S i g n e d o n 5 / 0 9 / 2 0 1 6 b y C l e r k o f C o u r t . T h i s i s a T E X T O N L Y E N T RY . N o
d o c u m e n t i s a t t a c h e d . ( Ke l l e r , Ja n n e )
e
Filed & Entered:
0 5 /1 0 /2 0 1 6 T e le p h o n e C o n fe re n c e
Docket Text: M i n u t e E n t r y . P r o c e e d i n g s h e l d b e f o r e D i s t r i c t Jd g e M . D o u g l a s H a r p o o l :
u
T E L E P H O N E C O N FE RE N C E h e l d o n 5 / 1 0 / 2 0 1 6 . ( T e x t e n t r y o n l y - n o d o c u m e n t a t t a c h e d )
(H o w a rd , Lin d a )
Filed & Entered:
0 5 / 1 6 / 2 0 1 6 M o t i o n f o r Ex t e n s i o n o f T i m e
Terminated:
0 5 /1 6 /2 0 1 6
Docket Text: M O T I N f o r e x t e n s i o n o f t i m e to File Reply f i l e d b y Jh n L . H a y o b o n b e h a l f o f
O
o
Ots u k a Ph a r m a c e u tic a l C o ., Ltd .. S u g g e s tio n s in o p p o s itio n /r e s p o n s e d u e b y 6 /3 /2 0 1 6 u n le s s
o t h e r w i s e d i r e c t e d b y t h e c o u r t . ( H a y o b , Jh n )
o
Filed & Entered:
0 5 / 1 6 / 2 0 1 6 O r d e r o n M o t i o n f o r Ex t e n s i o n o f T i m e
Docket Text: O RD E R g r a n t i n g [ 4 7 ] m o t i o n f o r e x t e n s i o n o f t i m e t o f i l e r e p l y r e [ 2 7 ] m o t i o n t o
d i s m i s s . Re p l y s u g g e s t i o n s d u e b y 5 / 2 3 / 2 0 1 6 u n l e s s o t h e r w i s e d i r e c t e d b y t h e c o u r t S i g n e d o n

h ttp s ://e c f .m o w d .u s c o u r ts .g o v /c g i- b in /H is tDo c Qr y .p l? 7 1 0 8 1 9 2 5 6 8 4 4 5 1 - L_ 1 _ 0 - 1

6 /3 0 /2 0 1 6

C M / EC FW e s t e r n D i s t r i c t o f M i s s o u r i - H i s t o r y / D o c u m e n t s Q u e r y
Pa g e 7 o f 8
Case 2:16-cv-01597-GMN-PAL Document 18-3 Filed 08/08/16 Page 8 of 9

4 9

5 0

5 1

5 2

5 3

5 4

5 5

5 6

5 / 1 6 / 2 0 1 6 b y D i s t r i c t Jd g e M . D o u g l a s H a r p o o l . T h i s i s a T E X T O N L Y E N T RY . N o d o c u m e n t
u
is a tta c h e d .( H a n c e , B r e a n n a )
Filed & Entered:
0 5 / 2 3 / 2 0 1 6 Re p l y S u g g e s t i o n s t o M o t i o n
Docket Text: RE P L Y S U GGE S T I N S t o m o t i o n r e [ 2 7 ] M O T I N t o d i s m i s s f o r l a c k o f
O
O
j u r i s d i c t i o n f i l e d b y E r i c M . Go l d s t e i n o n b e h a l f o f D e f e n d a n t O t s u k a P h a r m a c e u t i c a l C o . , L t d . .
( A t t a c h m e n t s : # ( 1 ) A f f i d a v i t Re p l y D e c l a r a t i o n o f T a t s u r o W a t a n a b e ) ( Re l a t e d d o c u m e n t ( s ) [ 2 7 ] )
( Go l d s t e i n , E r i c )
Filed & Entered:
0 5 /2 5 /2 0 1 6 Or d e r o n M o tio n f o r Dis c o v e r y
Docket Text: O RD E R g r a n t i n g [ 3 7 ] m o t i o n f o r j u r i s d i c t i o n a l d i s c o v e r y a n d s e t t i n g p r e l i m i n a r y
c a s e m a n a g e m e n t s c h e d u l e . P a r t i e s ' p r o p o s e d p r o t e c t i v e o r d e r a n d E S Ip r o t o c o l d u e b y 6 / 2 0 / 1 6 .
Jr i s d i c t i o n a l d i s c o v e r y d u e b y 6 / 3 0 / 1 6 . P l a i n t i f f ' s s u p p l e m e n t a l b r i e f r e D e f e n d a n t ' s M o t i o n t o
u
Di s m i s s [ 2 7 ] d u e o n o r b e f o r e 7 / 1 1 / 1 6 a n d De f e n d a n t 's r e s p o n s e d u e o n o r b e f o r e 7 / 1 8 / 1 6 . C a s e i s
s e t f o r a n o th e r s ta tu s te le p h o n e c o n f e r e n c e o n 7 /2 8 /1 6 a t 1 0 :0 0 a .m . S ig n e d o n 5 /2 5 /2 0 1 6 b y
D i s t r i c t Jd g e M . D o u g l a s H a r p o o l . ( H a n c e , B r e a n n a )
u
Filed & Entered:
0 5 /2 5 /2 0 1 6 No tic e o f H e a r in g
Docket Text: N O T I E O F H E A RI G - T h i s i s t h e o f f i c i a l n o t i c e f o r t h i s h e a r i n g . T e l e p h o n e
C
N
C o n f e r e n c e s e t f o r 7 / 2 8 / 2 0 1 6 1 0 : 0 0 A M b e f o r e D i s t r i c t Jd g e M . D o u g l a s H a r p o o l . P l a i n t i f f s h a l l
u
in itia te c a ll w ith De f e n d a n ts a n d th e n , o n c e a ll p a r tie s a r e o n th e lin e , c a ll in to c h a m b e r s a t 4 1 7 8 6 5 - 3 7 4 1 .( H a n c e , B r e a n n a )
Filed & Entered:
0 6 /0 2 /2 0 1 6 C e rtific a te o f S e rv ic e
Docket Text: C E RT I C A T E O F S E RV I E b y T h o m a s L e l a n d of Plaintiff's First Set of
FI
C
Jurisdictional Discovery Interrogatories to Defendant Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. f i l e d b y
M u n i r RM e g h j e e o n b e h a l f o f P l a i n t i f f T h o m a s L e l a n d . ( M e g h j e e , M u n i r )
Filed & Entered:
0 6 /0 2 /2 0 1 6 C e rtific a te o f S e rv ic e
Docket Text: C E RT I C A T E O F S E RV I E b y T h o m a s L e l a n d of Plaintiff's First Set of
FI
C
Jurisdictional Requests for Production of Documents and Electronically Stored Information to
Defendant Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. f i l e d b y M u n i r R M e g h j e e o n b e h a l f o f P l a i n t i f f
T h o m a s Le la n d .( M e g h je e , M u n ir )
Filed & Entered:
0 6 /2 0 /2 0 1 6 M o tio n f o r Pr o te c tiv e Or d e r
Terminated:
0 6 /2 8 /2 0 1 6
Docket Text: Ji n t M O T I N f o r p r o t e c t i v e o r d e r and a Protocol for Electronically Stored
o
O
Information f i l e d b y M i c h a e l JP a t t o n o n b e h a l f o f B r i s t o l - M y e r s S q u i b b C o m p a n y . S u g g e s t i o n s
.
in o p p o s itio n /re s p o n s e d u e b y 7 /8 /2 0 1 6 u n le s s o th e rw is e d ire c te d b y th e c o u rt. (A tta c h m e n ts : #
( 1 ) E x h i b i t S t i p u l a t e d P r o t e c t i v e O r d e r , # ( 2 ) E x h i b i t S t i p u l a t e d E S IP r o t o c o l ) ( P a t t o n , M i c h a e l )
Filed & Entered:
0 6 /2 8 /2 0 1 6 M o tio n to S ta y
Terminated:
0 6 /2 9 /2 0 1 6
Docket Text: M O T I N t o s t a y Upposed Motion to Stay Pending a Decision by the Judicial Panel
O
on Multidistrict Litigation f i l e d b y M i c h a e l JP a t t o n o n b e h a l f o f B r i s t o l - M y e r s S q u i b b
.
C o m p a n y . S u g g e s tio n s in o p p o s itio n /re s p o n s e d u e b y 7 /1 5 /2 0 1 6 u n le s s o th e rw is e d ire c te d b y th e
c o u rt. (Pa tto n , M ic h a e l)
Filed & Entered:
0 6 /2 8 /2 0 1 6 S u g g e s tio n s in S u p p o rt o f M o tio n
Docket Text: S U GGE S T I N S i n s u p p o r t r e [ 5 5 ] M O T I N t o s t a y Upposed Motion to Stay
O
O
Pending a Decision by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation f i l e d b y M i c h a e l JP a t t o n o n
.
b e h a l f o f D e f e n d a n t B r i s t o l - M y e r s S q u i b b C o m p a n y . ( A t t a c h m e n t s : # ( 1 ) Ex h i b i t M D L M o t i o n )
( Re l a t e d d o c u m e n t ( s ) [ 5 5 ] ) ( P a t t o n , M i c h a e l )

h ttp s ://e c f .m o w d .u s c o u r ts .g o v /c g i- b in /H is tDo c Qr y .p l? 7 1 0 8 1 9 2 5 6 8 4 4 5 1 - L_ 1 _ 0 - 1

6 /3 0 /2 0 1 6

C M / EC FW e s t e r n D i s t r i c t o f M i s s o u r i - H i s t o r y / D o c u m e n t s Q u e r y
Pa g e 8 o f 8
Case 2:16-cv-01597-GMN-PAL Document 18-3 Filed 08/08/16 Page 9 of 9

5 7

5 8

Filed & Entered:
0 6 /2 8 /2 0 1 6 Or d e r o n M o tio n f o r Pr o te c tiv e Or d e r
Docket Text: O RD E R g r a n t i n g [ 5 4 ] j o i n t m o t i o n f o r p r o t e c t i v e o r d e r . S i g n e d o n 6 / 2 8 / 2 0 1 6 b y
D i s t r i c t Jd g e M . D o u g l a s H a r p o o l . ( H a n c e , B r e a n n a )
u
Filed & Entered:
0 6 /2 9 /2 0 1 6 Or d e r o n M o tio n to S ta y
Docket Text: O RD E R g r a n t i n g [ 5 5 ] u n o p p o s e d m o t i o n t o s t a y a l l p r o c e e d i n g s a n d d e a d l i n e s i n
t h i s c a s e p e n d i n g JM L ' s d e c i s i o n o n p a r t i e s ' j o i n t m o t i o n t o t r a n s f e r c a s e t o M D L . T h e p a r t i e s
P
s h a l l i m m e d i a t e l y a d v i s e t h e C o u r t o n c e t h e JM L h a s i s s u e d i t s d e c i s i o n . S i g n e d o n 6 / 2 9 / 2 0 1 6
P
b y D i s t r i c t Jd g e M . D o u g l a s H a r p o o l . T h i s i s a T E X T O N L Y E N T RY . N o d o c u m e n t i s a t t a c h e d .
u
(Ha n c e , B re a n n a )
Filed & Entered:
0 6 /3 0 /2 0 1 6 No tic e o f H e a r in g C a n c e lla tio n
Docket Text: N O T I E O F H E A RI G C A N C E L L A T I N - T h e T e l e p h o n e C o n f e r e n c e s c h e d u l e d
C
N
O
f o r 7 / 2 8 / 1 6 a t 1 0 : 0 0 a . m . h a s b e e n c a n c e l l e d . T h i s i s a T E X T O N L Y E N T RY . N o d o c u m e n t i s
a tta c h e d . (H o w a rd , Lin d a )

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt
0 6 /3 0 /2 0 1 6 1 0 :0 8 :0 8
PACER
Login:

a p 0 0 3 6 :2 5 0 6 6 6 1 :0

Client Code:

0 0 1 8 4 0 0 .0 0 0 8 1

Description:

H is to r y /Do c u m e n ts

Search
Criteria:

6 :1 6 -c v -0 3 0 2 3 M DH

Billable
Pages:
7

Cost:

0 .7 0

h ttp s ://e c f .m o w d .u s c o u r ts .g o v /c g i- b in /H is tDo c Qr y .p l? 7 1 0 8 1 9 2 5 6 8 4 4 5 1 - L_ 1 _ 0 - 1

6 /3 0 /2 0 1 6

Case 2:16-cv-01597-GMN-PAL Document 18-4 Filed 08/08/16 Page 1 of 3

EXHIBIT D

Case 2:16-cv-01597-GMN-PAL Document 18-4 Filed 08/08/16 Page 2 of 3
Case 1:16-cv-00170-ELH Document 60 Filed 06/29/16 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:16-cv-00170-ELH

Document 59-4 Filed 06/29/16 Page 1 2
of
U.S. 0 rSTHJ c.'; ~ C C;'
DISH::C -_.,' ,
'
~

f I- :...~
',...J

I~~.'.'

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COU:RJ'J!)
JU:: 29 P;: 5: ! 6
DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
:~'l
C L t.;'. -,;. l.. " .,..::,
f"'"

_

;',"'

---,'

t'J Bi'r,:,

Diana Kinder, et ano.,

~

:DW:

)

)

Plaintiffs,
VS,

Bristol-Myers

Squibb Company, et aI.,
Defendants.

James R. Davis,
Plaintiff,

Squibb Company, et aI.,
Defendants.

Matthew T. Schaap,
Plaintiff,
VS.

Bristol-Myers

Case No.: 1:16-cv-00170-ELH

)
)
)
)

)
)
)
)
)

VS.

Bristol-Myers

)

)
)
)

Squibb Company, et aI.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:16-cv-00171-ELH

)
)
)

)
)
)
)
)

)
)

r~

Case No.: 1:16-cv-00172-ELH

Case 2:16-cv-01597-GMN-PAL Document 18-4 Filed 08/08/16 Page 3 of 3
Case 1:16-cv-00170-ELH Document 60 Filed 06/29/16 Page 2 of 2
Case 1:16-cv-00170-ELH

Document 59-4 Filed 06/29/16

Stephen Butler, et ano.,

Page 2 of 2

)

)
)
)
)

Plaintiffs,
VS.

)
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, et aI.,
Defendants.

Case No.: 1:16-cv-00173-ELH

)
)
)
)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' UNOPPOSED
MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS PENDING DECISION
BY JUDICIAL PANEL ON MUL TIDISTRICT LITIGATION

On June 29, 2016, Defendants Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Otsuka
America Pharmaceutical, Inc., and Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. filed an
unopposed motion to stay all proceedings until the resolution of the Parties' joint
motion to establish a multidistrict litigation ("MDL").
IT IS SO ORDERED that all proceedings

III

this case, including

consideration of Defendant Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.'s pending Motions to
Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction, are hereby stayed until resolution of the
Parties' joint motion to establish an MDL for Abilify@ compulsive behavior
litigation nationwide.
Defendants' motion to stay all proceedings is hereby GRANTED.

Pr

S~.fu:,

~

u ~

Ixr

g/ICf II

~.

fL If

IT IS SO ORDERED

Dated:

,2016

~-R.~
HON. ELLEN L. HOLLANDER
United States District Judge

Case 2:16-cv-01597-GMN-PAL Document 18-5 Filed 08/08/16 Page 1 of 2

EXHIBIT E

Case Case 2:16-cv-01597-GMN-PAL Document 18-5 Filed 08/08/161 of 1 PageID 1283
8:16-cv-00117-JDW-JSS Document 73 Filed 06/30/16 Page Page 2 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
BEN NAIVEN BOWMAN,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 8:16-cv-117-T-27JSS

BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY,
OTSUKA PHARMACEUTICAL CO.,
LTD., and OTSUKA AMERICA
PHARMACEUTICAL, INC.,
Defendants.
___________________________________/
ORDER
BEFORE THE COURT is Defendant’s Unopposed Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending
Decision by Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (Dkt. 72). Upon consideration, it is
ORDERED:
1)

Defendant’s Unopposed Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Decision by Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (Dkt. 72) is GRANTED.

2)

This case is STAYED pending a decision by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation regarding whether this action should be transferred.

3)

The

Clerk

is

directed

to

terminate

any

pending

ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE this case.
DONE AND ORDERED this 30th day of June, 2016.

/s/ James D. Whittemore
JAMES D. WHITTEMORE
United States District Judge
Copies to: Counsel of Record

motions

and

Case 2:16-cv-01597-GMN-PAL Document 18-6 Filed 08/08/16 Page 1 of 2

EXHIBIT F

Case 2:16-cv-01597-GMN-PAL Document 50 Filed 07/05/16 Page 1 of2 of 2
Case 1:16-cv-00654-CCC
Document 18-6 Filed 08/08/16 Page 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JOSEPH EDGAR, et al.,
Plaintiffs
v.
BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB
COMPANY, et al.,
Defendants

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-CV-654
(Chief Judge Conner)

ORDER
On July 1, 2016, Defendants Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Otsuka America
Pharmaceutical, Inc., and Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. filed an unopposed
motion (Doc. 48) to stay all proceedings until the resolution by the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation of the Parties’ joint motion to establish a multidistrict
litigation (“MDL”).
IT IS SO ORDERED that all proceedings in this case, including
consideration of Defendant Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.’s pending Motion to
Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction, are hereby stayed until resolution of the
Parties’ joint motion to establish an MDL for Abilify® compulsive behavior
litigation nationwide.
Defendants’ motion to stay all proceedings is hereby GRANTED.

Dated:

July 5, 2016

/S/ CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER
Christopher C. Conner, Chief Judge
United States District Court
Middle District of Pennsylvania

Case 2:16-cv-01597-GMN-PAL Document 18-7 Filed 08/08/16 Page 1 of 2

EXHIBIT G

Case 2:16-cv-01597-GMN-PALDocument 50 Filed 07/06/16 Page 1 of 2 of 2
Case 2:16-cv-00244-PBT
Document 18-7 Filed 08/08/16 Page 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MARC S. TRIPLER, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
BRISTOL-MYERS
QUIBB COMPANY, et al.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION
NO. 16-0244

ORDER
AND NOW, this _6th_ day of July, 2016, upon consideration of Defendants’ Unopposed
Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Decision by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
(Doc. 49), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DECREED that the Motion is GRANTED. All
proceedings in this case, including consideration of Defendant Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.’s
pending Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 15), are hereby STAYED pending a decision by the Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.

BY THE COURT:
/s/ Petrese B. Tucker
_________________________
Hon. Petrese B. Tucker, C.J.

Case 2:16-cv-01597-GMN-PAL Document 18-8 Filed 08/08/16 Page 1 of 3

EXHIBIT H

Case 2:16-cv-00447-UA-CM Document 13 Filed 07/06/1608/08/16 of 2 PageID 149
Case 2:16-cv-01597-GMN-PAL Document 18-8 Filed Page 1 Page 2 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
GARY R. CLARKE,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 2:16-cv-447-FtM-99CM

BRISTOL-MYERS
SQUIBB
COMPANY,
OTSUKA
PHARMACEUTICAL CO., LTD.,
and
OTSUKA
AMERICA
PHARMACEUTICAL, INC.,
Defendants.
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on defendants' Unopposed
Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Decision by Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict

Litigation

(Doc.

#11)

filed

on

July

5,

2016.

Defendants seek a stay of this case pending a determination by the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) on the parties’
motion to transfer this case, and 25 other cases, for consolidation
before the JPML with regard to the prescription medication Abilify®
and an increased risk of compulsive behaviors.
oppose the stay.
period

of

time

Upon review, the stay will be granted for a
without

prejudice

extension of the stay if necessary.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED:

Plaintiff does not

to

the

parties

seeking

an

Case 2:16-cv-00447-UA-CM Document 13 Filed 07/06/1608/08/16 of 2 PageID 150
Case 2:16-cv-01597-GMN-PAL Document 18-8 Filed Page 2 Page 3 of 3

Defendants'

Unopposed

Motion

to

Stay

Proceedings

Pending

Decision by Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (Doc. #11)
is GRANTED to the extent that the case is stayed for a period of
NINETY (90) DAYS from the date of this Order, including the filing
of a pleading or response to the Complaint.

If the case is not

otherwise transferred within this time period, the parties may
seek to continue the stay before expiration of the time period.
DONE and ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this
July, 2016.

Copies:
Counsel of Record

- 2 -

6th

day of

Case 2:16-cv-01597-GMN-PAL Document 18-9 Filed 08/08/16 Page 1 of 3

EXHIBIT I

Case 2:16-cv-01597-GMN-PAL Document 18-9 Filed 07/08/16 Page 1 of 2
CASE 0:16-cv-00067-PJS-KMM Document 55 Filed 08/08/16 Page 2 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Case No. 0:16-cv-00067-PJS-KMM
Denise Miley and Brad Miley,
Plaintiffs,
ORDER
v.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Otsuka
Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., and Otsuka America
Pharmaceutical, Inc.,
Defendants.

Defendants Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Otsuka America Pharmaceutical,
Inc., and Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. have filed a Motion to Stay Proceedings
Pending a Decision by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML”). [ECF No.
49]. It is expected that, in late September, the JPML will consider whether this case and
others should be made part of a nationwide multi-district litigation (“MDL”). The Court
agrees that the conservation of judicial resources is best served by allowing the JPML
time to determine whether this action should be part of an MDL, or should proceed as a
stand-alone case in this District.
Based on the submission of Defendants, the agreement of the Plaintiffs, and a
review of the record,

Case 2:16-cv-01597-GMN-PAL Document 18-9 Filed 07/08/16 Page 2 of 2
CASE 0:16-cv-00067-PJS-KMM Document 55 Filed 08/08/16 Page 3 of 3

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
Defendants’ Motion is GRANTED and this matter shall be stayed until the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation renders a decision. The parties are ORDERED
to advise the Court within seven days after the JPML reaches a decision in this matter.
Dated: July 8, 2016
s/ Katherine Menendez
The Honorable Katherine M. Menendez
United States Magistrate Judge

2

Case 2:16-cv-01597-GMN-PAL Document 18-10 Filed 08/08/16 Page 1 of 3

EXHIBIT J

Case 2:16-cv-01597-GMN-PAL Document 60 Filed 07/14/16 Page 1 of 2 of 3
Case 3:16-cv-00254-HSG Document 18-10 Filed 08/08/16 Page

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

STEPHANIE PAMINTUAN,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 16-cv-00254-HSG

v.
BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY,
et al.,

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS'
MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS
PENDING MDL PANEL DECISION
Re: Dkt. No. 57

Defendants.

12
13

Before the Court is the motion to stay proceedings pending decision by the Judicial Panel

14

on Multidistrict Litigation (“Panel”) filed by Defendants Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Otsuka

15

America Pharmaceutical, Inc., and Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. (together, “Defendants”).

16

Dkt. No. 57 (“Mot.”). Plaintiff Stephanie Pamintuan (“Plaintiff”) does not oppose the motion.

17

On June 24, 2016, the parties filed a joint petition with the Panel to transfer this case (and

18

25 others that also allege Defendants’ pharmaceutical Abilify caused compulsive behavior) to one

19

consolidated MDL proceeding. Id., Ex. A. Defendants request a stay of proceedings in this Court

20

pending the Panel’s decision on whether to order transfer of the action. Defendants contend that

21

any further proceedings in this Court, including a decision on the pending motion to dismiss for

22

lack of personal jurisdiction, would endanger uniformity of treatment among the Abilify cases. Id.

23

at 6. The parties expect the Panel to hear the petition on September 29, 2016. Id. at 7.

24

A district court’s “power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every

25

court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for

26

itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). Using this

27

power, a case may be stayed pending the resolution of independent judicial proceedings that bear

28

upon the case. Leyva v. Certified Grocers of Cal., Ltd., 593 F.2d 857, 863-64 (9th Cir. 1997). A

Case 2:16-cv-01597-GMN-PAL Document 60 Filed 07/14/16 Page 2 of 3 of 3
Case 3:16-cv-00254-HSG Document 18-10 Filed 08/08/16 Page 2

1

Landis stay is generally of a limited duration. See Landis, 299 U.S. at 256 (stating that a district

2

court abuses its discretion by entering a “stay of indefinite duration in the absence of a pressing

3

need”); Dependable Highway Exp., Inc. v. Navigators Ins. Co., 498 F.3d 1059, 1066-67 (9th Cir.

4

2007) (reversing district court for imposing Landis stay of indefinite nature).

5

In order to determine whether a Landis stay should be implemented, courts consider: (1)
“the possible damage which may result from the granting of a stay,” (2) “the hardship or inequity

7

which a party may suffer in being required to go forward,” and (3) “the orderly course of justice

8

measured in terms of the simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law which

9

could be expected to result from a stay.” CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962)

10

(citing Landis, 299 U.S. at 254-55). Whether to grant a stay request is a matter entrusted to the

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

6

discretion of the district court. See Landis, 299 U.S. at 254 (“How this can best be done calls for

12

the exercise of judgment, which must weigh competing interests and maintain an even balance.”).

13

The Court finds that a temporary stay of proceedings in this action is appropriate pending a

14

decision by the Panel on whether to consolidate the Abilify compulsive behavior cases in a single

15

MDL proceeding. Under these circumstances, it makes sense for the court handling any MDL to

16

have the opportunity to resolve issues like personal jurisdiction in a uniform manner. Silverthorn

17

v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., No. 15-cv-1428, 2015 WL 2356785, at *7 (N.D. Cal. May 15, 2015).

18

But more importantly, there does not appear to be any risk of harm or prejudice to any party or

19

third party, especially in the light of Plaintiff’s consent. And given that the Panel intends to hear

20

the matter on September 29, 2016, the stay will be temporary and limited in duration.

21
22

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ unopposed motion to stay this case pending
a decision by the Panel on whether to transfer this action to a consolidated MDL proceeding.

23
24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 7/14/2016

26
27
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

28
2

Case 2:16-cv-01597-GMN-PAL Document 18-11 Filed 08/08/16 Page 1 of 5

EXHIBIT K

Case 1:16-cv-01674-MEH Document 9 Filed 07/18/16 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 4
Case 2:16-cv-01597-GMN-PAL Document 18-11 Filed 08/08/16 Page 2 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 16-cv-01674-MEH
MOLLY ADAMS, and
ERIC ADAMS,
Plaintiffs,
v.
BRISTOL-MEYERS SQUIBB COMPANY,
OTSUKA PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY, LTD., and
OTSUKA AMERICA PHARMACEUTICAL, INC.,
Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STAY

Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge.
Before the Court is Defendants’ Unopposed Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Decision
by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation [filed July 15, 2016; docket #8]. For the reasons
that follow, the motion is granted.
I.

Background
Plaintiffs initiated this action on June 29, 2016 alleging generally that Defendants “did not

warn, advise, educate, or otherwise inform (prescription drug) Abilify users or prescribers in the
United States about the risk of compulsive gambling or other compulsive behaviors” and
“Defendants’ drug Abilify harmed Plaintiff Molly Adams, having caused harmful compulsive
behaviors including compulsive gambling, resulting in substantial financial, mental, and physical
damages.” Complaint, ¶¶ 3, 6, docket #1. Plaintiffs brings claims for products liability, negligence,
fraud, violation of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act, and for breach of express and implied
warranties. Id. at 21-34.

Case 1:16-cv-01674-MEH Document 9 Filed 07/18/16 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 4
Case 2:16-cv-01597-GMN-PAL Document 18-11 Filed 08/08/16 Page 3 of 5

Defendants have not responded to the complaint, but filed the present motion seeking a
temporary stay of all proceedings pending a decision by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
(“JPML”) adjudicating a motion to transfer and consolidate actions filed across the country by
similarly situated plaintiffs. Defendants anticipate that the Panel will rule on the motion during or
shortly after the hearing set for September 29, 2016. Apparently, if the JPML grants the motion to
transfer, this and other similar actions will be consolidated into one multidistrict litigation
proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 in the Northern District of Florida.
“The Court has broad discretion to stay proceedings as incidental to its power to control its
own docket.” Lundy v. C.B. Fleet Co., Inc., No. 09-cv-00802-WYD, 2009 WL 1965521, at *1 (D.
Colo. July 6, 2009) (citations omitted); see also String Cheese Incident, LLC v. Stylus Shows, Inc.,
No. 02-cv-01934-LTB-PAC, 2006 WL 894955, at *2 (D. Colo. Mar. 30, 2006). “As a general rule,
‘courts frequently grant stays pending a decision by the MDL panel regarding whether to transfer
a case.” Lundy, 2009 WL 1965521, at *1 (quoting Good v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 5 F. Supp.
2d 804, 809 (C.D. Cal. 1998)).
The Court concludes that a temporary stay of proceedings is appropriate here. The Court
first considers whether the interests of the parties would be served by a stay. See String Cheese,
2006 WL 894955, at *2 (balancing prejudice of stay to the non-moving party, the plaintiff, against
any undue burden of going forward on defendant). The Plaintiffs do not oppose the request and I
agree that a temporary stay of proceedings is in all of the parties’ best interests. Further, the JPML
is expected to rule on the motion to transfer by early October 2016 at the latest and, thus, the stay
requested is likely to be brief, which minimizes any potential prejudice to any party.
The Court also considers its own convenience, the interests of nonparties, and the public
interest in general. See String Cheese, 2006 WL 894955, at *2. None of these factors prompts the

2

Case 1:16-cv-01674-MEH Document 9 Filed 07/18/16 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 4
Case 2:16-cv-01597-GMN-PAL Document 18-11 Filed 08/08/16 Page 4 of 5

Court to reach a different result. The Court finds that granting the stay will promote judicial
economy and efficiency. See Lundy, 2009 WL 1965521, at *1-2 (concluding “judicial economy ...
best served by granting a stay pending the MDL Panel’s decision”); Lilak v. Pfizer Corp., Inc., No.
08-cv-02439-CMA, 2008 WL 4924632, at *3 (D. Colo. Nov. 13, 2008) (reasoning stay pending
transfer to MDL appropriate because judicial economy best served by case being considered as part
of MDL); Franklin v. Merck & Co., Inc., No. 06-cv-02164-WYD, 2007 WL 188264, at *2 (D. Colo.
Jan. 24, 2007) (finding that pending transfer to MDL “granting a stay would promote judicial
economy and help insure consistent pretrial rulings”).
Unlike in Lundy, Lilak, and Franklin, here the JPML has not yet determined whether a
consolidated MDL proceeding is warranted for these Abilify actions. This fact may decrease the
likelihood that the instant action will actually be transferred. However, the Court agrees with
Defendants that awaiting a ruling from the JPML will conserve judicial resources and avoid the
issuance of rulings on discovery and substantive motions inconsistent with those issued by other
federal courts. See Rivers v. Walt Disney Co., 980 F. Supp. 1358, 1360-62 (C.D. Cal. 1997)
(granting stay where motion to transfer and consolidate cases into MDL proceeding pending before
MDL Panel and noting that “a majority of courts” have concluded that such a stay is appropriate and
conserves judicial resources); Manual for Complex Litigation (Fourth) § 22.35 (2009) (“A stay
pending the Panel’s decision can increase efficiency and consistency, particularly when the
transferor court believes that a transfer order is likely and when the pending motions raise issues
likely to be raised in other cases as well.”).
Finally, the Court does not find that this case triggers a compelling nonparty or public
interest that requires a different result. Therefore, as a resolution of the pending motion may result
in the transfer of this matter in its entirety, the Court finds good cause exists to impose a temporary

3

Case 1:16-cv-01674-MEH Document 9 Filed 07/18/16 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 4
Case 2:16-cv-01597-GMN-PAL Document 18-11 Filed 08/08/16 Page 5 of 5

stay until the JPML rules on the pending Motion to Transfer.
III.

Conclusion
Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, the Court grants the Defendants’ Unopposed

Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Decision by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation [filed
July 15, 2016; docket #8]. This matter is temporarily stayed pending further order of the Court.
The Scheduling Conference currently set in this case for August 30, 2016 is vacated. The parties
shall file a status report with the Court within five business days of the JPML’s ruling on the motion
to transfer indicating what, if any, scheduling may be needed.
Dated at Denver, Colorado, this 18th day of July, 2016.
BY THE COURT:

Michael E. Hegarty
United States Magistrate Judge

4

Case 2:16-cv-01597-GMN-PAL Document 18-12 Filed 08/08/16 Page 1 of 2

EXHIBIT L

CaseCase 2:16-cv-01597-GMN-PAL Document Filed 07/22/16 Page 1 Page 2 of 2 810
8:16-cv-00116-SDM-MAP Document 72 18-12 Filed 08/08/16 of 1 PageID

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
WILETTE REESE,
Plaintiffs,
v.

CASE NO. 8:16-cv-116-T-23MAP

BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY,
et al.,
Defendants.
____________________________________/

ORDER
The defendants’ unopposed motion (Doc. 69) to stay is GRANTED. No later
than OCTOBER 4, 2016, the parties must either move to lift the stay or file a notice
describing the status of the request to transfer this action.
ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on July 22, 2016.

Case 2:16-cv-01597-GMN-PAL Document 18-13 Filed 08/08/16 Page 1 of 3

EXHIBIT M

Case 2:16-cv-01597-GMN-PAL Document 18-13 Filed 08/08/16 Page 2 of 3
Case 1:16-cv-00065-LJO-BAM Document 60 Filed 07/29/16 Page 1 of 2

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

BRENDA SEARS; AND ROBERT SEARS,
Plaintiffs,

5
6
7

v.
BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY,
ET AL.,
Defendants.

8
9

CASE NO. 1:16-CV-00065-LJO-BAM
CASE NO. 1:16-CV-00357-LJO-BAM
CASE NO. 1:16-CV-00609-LJO-BAM
CASE NO. 1:16-CV-00737-LJO-BAM
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
UNOPPOSED MOTION TO STAY
PENDING DECISION BY THE JUDICIAL
PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT
LITIGATION
(ECF No. 54)

10
11
12

KAREN REYNOLDS; AND, DELMAR
SCOTT REYNOLDS,

13
14
15

(ECF No. 45)

Plaintiffs,
v.
BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY;
ET AL.,

16

Defendants.

17
18

ATHALEAN HARPER-MOSLEY,
Plaintiff,

19
20
21

(ECF No. 31, 32)

v.
BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY;
ET AL.,

22

Defendants.

23
24

TRAVIS VICKERS,
Plaintiffs,

25
26
27
28

(ECF No. 16)

v.
BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY;
ET AL.,
Defendants.

Case 2:16-cv-01597-GMN-PAL Document 18-13 Filed 08/08/16 Page 3 of 3
Case 1:16-cv-00065-LJO-BAM Document 60 Filed 07/29/16 Page 2 of 2

1

TO ALL PARTIES AND ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

2

This matter came before the Court on Defendants Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Otsuka

3

America Pharmaceutical, Inc., and Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.’s unopposed motion to stay all

4

proceedings pending the resolution of the Parties’ joint motion to establish a multidistrict litigation

5

(“MDL”). The Court deems the matter appropriate for resolution without oral argument. See E.D.

6

Cal. Civ. L.R. 230(g). Based on the papers filed by the Defendants, and good cause appearing, IT

7

IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ motion is GRANTED. All proceedings in the above-

8

captioned cases, including consideration of any pending Motions to Dismiss, are hereby stayed

9

pending the resolution of the Parties’ joint motion to establish an MDL for Abilify® compulsive

10
11

behavior litigation nationwide.
The Clerk of Court is FURTHER ORDERED to terminate any pending motions in these

12

cases. Upon resolution of the Parties’ joint motion to establish an MDL, any previously-filed

13

motion may be re-noticed.

14
15
16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____

July 29, 2016

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE

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

Case 2:16-cv-01597-GMN-PAL Document 18-14 Filed 08/08/16 Page 1 of 3

EXHIBIT N

Case Case 2:16-cv-01597-GMN-PAL Document 18-14 Filed 08/08/16 2 Pageof 3#:881
2:16-cv-00326-PA-AGR Document 71 Filed 07/06/16 Page 1 of Page 2 ID

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

Barry J. Thompson (State Bar No. 150359)
[e-mail]
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
Attorneys for Defendant Bristol-Myers Squibb
Company
Drew A. Robertson (State Bar No. 266317)
[e-mail]
WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
333 South Grand Avenue, 38th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
Attorneys for Defendants Otsuka America
Pharmaceutical, Inc. and Otsuka
Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.

14

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

15

FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

16

WESTERN DIVISION

17

DANIEL F. THOMAS,

18
Plaintiff,

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

v.
BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB
COMPANY; OTSUKA
PHARMACEUTICAL CO., LTD.; and
OTSUKA AMERICA
PHARMACEUTICAL, INC.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:16-cv-326-PA-AGR
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
STAY PENDING GRANT OF MDL
PETITION
Date: August 1, 2016
Time: 1:30 p.m.
Place: Courtroom 15, 312 North Spring
Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Judge: Honorable Percy Anderson

27
28
-1ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY PENDING GRANT OF MDL PETITION

Case Case 2:16-cv-01597-GMN-PAL Document 18-14 Filed 08/08/16 2 Pageof 3#:882
2:16-cv-00326-PA-AGR Document 71 Filed 07/06/16 Page 2 of Page 3 ID

1

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

2

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that this matter came before the Court on

3

Defendants Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Otsuka America Pharmaceutical, Inc.,

4

and Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.’s unopposed motion to stay all proceedings (the

5

“Motion”) until the Parties’ joint motion to establish a multidistrict litigation

6

(“MDL”) is resolved by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. Having read

7

and considered the Motion,

8

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

9

The Motion is DENIED without prejudice.

10
11
12
13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16
17

Dated: July 6, 2016

__________________________
HON. PERCY ANDERSON
United States District Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY PENDING GRANT OF MDL PETITION