Summary
In Freitas, the court recently granted a defendant's motion to stay where the plaintiffs partly and erroneously argued that they would experience prejudice if their case was transferred to a MDL court, rather than if the district court granted the defendant's motion to stay.
Summary of this case from Couture v. Hoffman-La Roche, Inc.Opinion
NO. C 11-05967 JW
01-10-2012
Terry Freitas, et al., Plaintiffs, v. McKesson Corp., et al., Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT ELI LILLY'S MOTION TO STAY; DENYING AS PREMATURE PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO REMAND
Presently before the Court are: (1) Defendant Eli Lilly and Company's ("Eli Lilly") Motion to Stay; and (2) Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand. The Court finds it appropriate to take the Motions under submission without oral argument. See Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). Based on the papers submitted to date, the Court GRANTS Defendant Eli Lilly's Motion to Stay and DENIES as premature Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand. A. Background
(Defendant Eli Lilly and Company, a Corporation's Notice of Motion and Motion to Stay All Proceedings Pending Transfer by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, hereafter, "Motion to Stay," Docket Item No. 13.)
(Plaintiffs' Notice of Motion and Motion to Remand for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction, hereafter, "Motion to Remand," Docket Item No. 20.)
The Court reviews the procedural history relevant to addressing these Motions.
On August 16, 2011, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("MDL Panel") created MDL No. 2226 to coordinate all federal cases concerning "Darvocet, Darvon and other medications containing Propoxyphene," and the issues of whether certain defendants "manufactured, licensed or sold propoxyphene products during various times" and "knew or should have known of the increased risk of cardiovascular injuries with these medications and failed to provide adequate warnings of them." Under MDL Panel rules, any party to actions that have been previously transferred to consolidated litigation "shall promptly notify [the Panel] of any potential tag-along actions in which that party is also named . . . ." J.M.D.L. R. 7.1(a).
See In re: Darvocet, Darvon and Propoxyphene Products Liability Litig., MDL No. 2226, 780 F. Supp. 2d 1379, 1380 (J.P.M.L. 2011).
On December 5, 2011, Defendant Xanodyne Pharmaceuticals, Inc. removed this action from San Francisco County Superior Court. (See Docket Item No. 1.) On December 7, 2011, Defendant Xanodyne Pharmaceuticals, Inc. notified the MDL Panel of this action as a "potential tag-along" to MDL No. 2226. Following that notice, the MDL Panel issued a Conditional Transfer Order transferring this action to MDL No. 2226. On December 19, 2011, Plaintiffs filed an Opposition to the Conditional Transfer Order. (See Opp'n at 8.) On January 4, 2012, Plaintiffs filed their Motion to Remand. (See Motion to Remand.) B. Discussion
(See Motion to Stay, Ex. C, Notice of Potential Tag-Along Actions, Docket Item No. 13-1.)
Under the J.M.D.L. rules, when the Clerk of an MDL Panel learns of "the pendency of a potential tag-along action," the Clerk "may enter a conditional order transferring that action to the previously designated transferee district court." J.M.D.L. R. 7.1(b).
Although the parties have not provided the Court with a copy of the Conditional Transfer Order, it is undisputed that the Panel has issued such an Order. (See Plaintiffs' Opposition to Eli Lilly's Motion to Stay All Proceedings Pending Transfer by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation at 8, hereafter, "Opp'n," Docket Item No. 15; Reply Brief in Support of Defendant Eli Lilly and Company, a Corporation's Motion to Stay All Proceedings Pending Transfer by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation at 1, hereafter, "Reply," Docket Item No. 19.)
At issue is whether this case should be stayed pending the decision of the MDL Panel to transfer the case to a designated MDL court.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1407, civil actions involving one or more common questions of fact that are pending in different districts may be transferred to any district for "coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings." 28 U.S.C. § 1407(a). A conditional transfer order before the MDL Panel does not affect or suspend pretrial proceedings of any pending federal district court action or limit the pretrial jurisdiction of that court. J.P.M.L. R. 2.1(d). However, if a case is transferred for consolidated pretrial proceedings, orders of the transferee court may duplicate or conflict with orders of a transferor court that continued pretrial proceedings without a stay. See Rivers v. Walt Disney Co., 980 F. Supp. 1358, 1360 (C.D. Cal. 1997). "Often, deference to the MDL court for resolution of a motion to remand provides the opportunity for the uniformity, consistency, and predictability in litigation that underlies the MDL system." Nielsen v. Merck and Co., No. C07-00076 MJJ, 2007 WL 806510, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2007).
When considering whether to stay proceedings pending a motion before the MDL Panel, courts consider such factors as: (1) the interests of conserving judicial resources and avoiding duplicative litigation; and (2) the possibility of hardship or prejudice to the parties. See In re iPhone Application Litig., No. 10-CV-05878-LHK, 2011 WL 2149102, at *2 (N.D. Cal. May 31, 2011). The Court considers each in turn.
1. Conserving Judicial Resources
At issue is whether the interest of conserving judicial resources favors a stay.
Courts generally grant a stay pending resolution of consolidated proceedings when a stay would avoid the needless duplication of work and the possibility of inconsistent rulings. See Rivers, 980 F. Supp. at 1360-61.
Here, the Court finds that the interests of judicial economy favor a stay. Over 100 cases involving allegations of harm resulting from the ingestion of medications containing propoxyphene have been transferred to MDL No. 2226. Thus, the Court finds that granting a stay in this case would prevent the Court from needlessly duplicating work that will be done by the MDL transferee court, and would also eliminate the possibility of this Court issuing a ruling inconsistent with the MDL court's. See Rivers, 980 F. Supp. at 1360-61.
(See Motion to Stay, Ex. B, Conditional Transfer Order (CTO-10), Docket Item No. 13-1.)
Plaintiffs' contention that the Court should not address the Motion to Stay without first deciding their Motion to Remand is misguided. (See Opp'n at 4-8.) In support of this contention, Plaintiffs rely on Conroy v. Fresh Del Monte Produce, Inc., which they take to stand for the proposition that a court "should give preliminary scrutiny to the merits of [a] motion to remand" prior to staying an action. (Id. at 4 (citing Conroy, 325 F. Supp. 2d at 1053).) However, the Court finds that Plaintiffs' reliance on Conroy is misplaced. First, the court in Conroy made clear that the "Ninth Circuit has not expressly adopted" the approach followed by the court in that case. See Conroy, 325 F. Supp. 2d at 1053. Second, following Conroy, other courts in the Northern District, including this one, have made clear that courts are not bound to preliminarily consider the merits of a remand motion before considering a motion to stay. Thus, the Court declines to address the merits of Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand prior to addressing the question of whether a stay is merited.
325 F. Supp. 2d 1049 (N.D. Cal. 2004).
See, e.g., Nichols v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., No. C 11-04748 JW, 2011 WL 5335619, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 2, 2011); see also Nielsen, 2007 WL 806510, at *2.
Accordingly, the Court finds that a stay would best serve the interests of judicial economy.
2. Prejudice to the Parties
At issue is whether any party will suffer undue hardship or prejudice if the action is stayed.
Here, Plaintiffs' sole contention is that they will be prejudiced "if the unnecessary transfer occurs," as this will lead to a waste of "considerable . . . time and resources on a jurisdictional issue that is ripe for determination by this Court." (Opp'n at 9-10.) Against this, Defendant Eli Lilly contends that it will be prejudiced if it is "forced to litigate the same threshold issues, including jurisdictional issues, multiple times in multiple district courts while cases await transfer to the MDL." (Reply at 10.)
Upon review, the Court finds that Plaintiffs will not suffer prejudice if the action is stayed. In particular, the Court finds that Plaintiffs' contention that they will be prejudiced "if the unnecessary transfer occurs" is not relevant to the issue of whether Plaintiffs will be prejudiced by a stay of this case. Rather, this contention concerns the propriety of this case being transferred to the MDL court. However, as discussed above, the question of whether this case should be transferred to the MDL court is currently before the MDL court, and is not before this Court in relation to the Motion to Stay. Thus, the Court finds that Plaintiffs will not suffer undue hardship or prejudice if this case is stayed. C. Conclusion
The Court GRANTS Defendant Eli Lilly's Motion to Stay.
All proceedings in this action are STAYED pending resolution of the MDL Panel proceeding. In light of this Order, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand as premature.
In light of this Order, the Court DENIES as premature Defendant Xanodyne Pharmaceuticals, Inc.'s Re-Notice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2). (Docket Item No. 23.) On December 12, 2011, Defendant Xanodyne Pharmaceuticals filed an identical motion to dismiss before Chief Magistrate Judge James. (hereafter, "December 12 Motion," Docket Item No. 11.) The Court DENIES as moot the duplicative December 12 Motion.
Any party may move to lift the stay within ten (10) days of the MDL Panel's final decision. Dated: January 10, 2012
/s/_________
JAMES WARE
United States District Chief Judge
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO:
Adam Richard Salvas asalvas@seegersalvas.com
Christopher Patrick Norton christopher.norton@sedgwicklaw.com
Curtis Nelson Bruehl curtbrue@gmail.com
Elise Rochelle Sanguinetti sanguinetti@hinton-law.com
James Mark Neudecker jneudecker@reedsmith.com
Karen Elizabeth Woodward karen.woodward@sedgwicklaw.com
Richard Gordon Salkow rsalkow@salkowlaw.com
Dated: January 10, 2012
Richard W. Wieking, Clerk
By: /s/ JW Chambers
Susan Imbriani
Courtroom Deputy