DAVIS v. DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS, INC. et al
Filing
19
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Jerome B. Simandle on 11/2/2011. (TH, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
LINDA DAVIS,
HON. JEROME B. SIMANDLE
Plaintiff,
Civil No. 11-5139 (JBS/KMW)
v.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS, INC., et
al.,
Defendants.
SIMANDLE, District Judge:
This matter is before the Court on the motion to stay by
Defendant DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. [Docket Item 6] and the motion
to remand by Plaintiff Linda Davis [Docket Item 11].
The Court
finds as follows:
1.
Plaintiff Linda Davis, a citizen of North Carolina,
initially filed this product liability action in the Superior
Court of New Jersey, Atlantic County Law Division on July 8,
2011.
Plaintiff alleges injuries suffered as a result of being
implanted with an allegedly defective DePuy device in her hip, a
Pinnacle Acetabular Cup System, in 2008.
On September 8, 2011,
Defendant DePuy removed the action to this Court, alleging
subject matter jurisdiction on the basis of complete diversity,
and arguing that Defendant Johnson & Johnson, a citizen of New
Jersey, was fraudulently joined.
2.
On September 12, 2011, the United States Judicial Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation (“MDL Panel”) issued a conditional
transfer order in this matter pursuant to Rule 7.1 of the Rules
of Procedure of the MDL Panel, contemplating that the action be
transfered to the MDL proceeding No. 2244 before Judge Kinkeade
of the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Texas.
MDL No. 2244 was created by the MDL Panel on May 23, 2011
to coordinate federal cases sharing “factual questions as to
whether DePuy’s Pinnacle Acetabular Cup System, a device used in
hip replacement surgery, was defectively designed and/or
manufactured . . . .”
In re DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., Pinnacle
Hip Implant Products Liability Litigation, 787 F. Supp. 2d 1358,
1360 (U.S. Jud. Pan. Mult. Lit., May 23, 2011).
3.
On September 13, 2011, Defendant DePuy moved to stay
pretrial matters in this action pending transfer to MDL 2244.
On
October 4, 2011, Plaintiff filed opposition to DePuy’s motion to
stay and simultaneously filed a motion to remand the action to
the Superior Court of New Jersey [Docket Item 11], arguing that
DePuy had not met its burden to show that Defendant Johnson &
Johnson was fraudulently joined.
On that same date, Plaintiff
filed, with the MDL Panel, a motion to vacate the MDL Panel’s
conditional transfer order as it relates to this action.
The MDL
Panel will decide the contested transfer order after its
scheduled hearing on the matter on December 1, 2011.
4.
The Court will grant DePuy’s motion to stay and will
defer adjudicating Plaintiff’s motion to remand.
2
The decision to
stay proceedings pending an MDL transfer is within the Court’s
“broad powers to stay proceedings”
Bechtel Corp. v. Local 215
Laborer’s Int’l Union of N.A., 544 F.2d 1207, 1215 (3d Cir.
1976), which requires the Court to weigh competing interests,
including: (1) the efficient and consistent adjudication of
common issues, (2) the hardship to the moving party should the
case proceed before the current Court, and (3) the potential
prejudice to the non-moving party from the delay occasioned by
the stay.
See Packer v. Power Balance, LLC, Civ. No. 11-802,
2011 WL 1099001 at *1 (D.N.J. Mar. 22, 2011).
5.
Plaintiff opposes the entry of the stay, in part, by
arguing that the Court must decide the pending motion to remand
based on subject matter jurisdiction before taking any other
action.
Plaintiff’s argument is unavailing.
Should the MDL
Panel order the transfer of the action to MDL 2244, Plaintiff’s
jurisdictional challenge will be heard by the District Court for
the Northern District of Texas.
See In re Ivy, 901 F.2d 7, 9 (2d
Cir. 1990) (“Once transferred, the jurisdictional objections can
be heard and resolved by a single court and reviewed at the
appellate level in due course.”).
6.
Plaintiff also argues that staying the case in
anticipation of MDL transfer does not promote judicial efficiency
or consistent adjudication because Plaintiff’s jurisdictional
challenge is not a question shared by any other action that has
3
been transferred to MDL 2244.
The Court finds, however, that
entering the stay is likely to promote judicial efficiency and
consistent adjudication.
DePuy avers that it anticipates
requesting transfer to MDL 2244 for other Pinnacle products
liability cases filed in New Jersey state courts naming Johnson &
Johnson as a defendant, thereby permitting one single court to
address similar issues consistently and efficiently.
Additionally, MDL 2244 has addressed motions to remand by other
plaintiffs.
See Long Cert. Ex. 2 (MDL 2244 Docket listing
motions to remand).
In fact, the Court notes that MDL 2244 has
been confronted with other motions to remand addressing the
specific question of whether specific defendants were
fraudulently joined to defeat subject matter jurisdiction.
See
Freisthler v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., Civ. No. 11-6580 2011 WL
4469532 (C.D. Ca. Sep. 21, 2011).
Thus, the Court concludes
that, in the event of transfer of this action, the District Court
for the Northern District of Texas handling pretrial motions for
the other MDL 2244 actions will be better equipped to ensure
efficient and consistent adjudication of Plaintiff Davis’s motion
to remand in this action.
7.
Finally, the Court finds that prejudice to Plaintiff
from a delay until the transfer issue is decided is minimal, as
the issue is scheduled for hearing before the MDL Panel on
December 1, 2011, which is less than one month away.
4
Should the
MDL Panel decide to transfer the action to MDL 2244, the MDL
transferee judge will decide it together with any similar
motions.
Alternatively, should the MDL Panel decide not to
transfer the action to MDL 2244, this Court will address it upon
receiving notification of the MDL Panel’s decision, again causing
Plaintiff only a minimum of delay.
The accompanying Order shall be entered.
November 2, 2011
Date
s/ Jerome B. Simandle
JEROME B. SIMANDLE
United States District Judge
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?