Carter v. Fresenius Medical Care Holding, Inc. et al

Filing 20

ORDER granting 18 Motion to Stay. Counsel for Plaintiff shall notify the court and opposing counsel immediately upon learning the Panel's decision on its request to transfer. Signed by Senior Judge James C. Fox on 3/1/2013. (Edwards, S.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DIVISION
No. 5:13-CV-51-F
KENDALL CARTER, individually, and
on behalf of the Estate of
LUCY JANET CARTER,

)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
FRESENIUS MEDICAL CARE
)
HOLDING, INC.; FRESENIUS
)
MEDICAL CARE HOLDING, INC.,
)
d/b/a FRESENIUS MEDICAL CARE
)
NORTH AMERICA; FRESENIUS
)
USA, INC.; FRESENIUS USA
)
MANUFACTURING, INC.; FRESENIUS)
USA MARKETING, INC.; FRESENIUS )
USA SALES, INC.; FRESENIUS
)
)
MEDICAL CARE AG & CO. KGAA;
FRESENIUS MEDICAL CARE
)
MANAGEMENT, AG; FRESENIUS SE )
& CO. KGAA; and FRESENIUS
)
MANAGEMENT, AG,
)
)
)
Defendants.

ORDER

This matter is before the court on the parties' joint motion to stay proceedings [DE-18],
pending disposition of a motion for transfer, pursuant to 28 U.S. C. § 1407, by the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation.
The instant action concerns injuries that Plaintiff allegedly suffered from the use ofGranuFlo
and/or NaturaLyte products during dialysis treatment. The parties state that on December 12, 2012,
a motion was filed with the Panel, requesting the transfer of similar federal actions involving
GranuFlo and NaturaLyte. On January 3, 2013, counsel for Plaintiff filed an Interested Party

Response with the Panel, seeking transfer of all similar cases to the Southern District of Mississippi
or, in the alternative, the Northern District of Alabama. The parties argue that this case involves
many ofthe same issues and defendants that are present in other cases being considered by the Panel,
and therefore the case should be stayed in the interests of judicial economy and efficiency until the
Panel decides whether to transfer this case to another district for multidistrict-litigation proceedings.
The undersigned finds that interests of efficiency and judicial economy favor staying this
action, pending the Panel's decision regarding whether to transfer the action. Accordingly,
1.

It is ORDERED that the parties' joint motion to stay proceedings [DE-18] is
ALLOWED; and

2.

It is FURTHER ORDERED that counsel for Plaintiff shall notify the court and

opposing counsel immediately upon learning the Panel's decision on its request to
transfer.
SO ORDERED.
This the _Cday ofMarch, 2013.

~MESC.FOX

Senior United States District Judge

2