Harders et al v. Johnson & Johnson et al

RESPONSE in Opposition re MOTION to Stay All Proceedings

S.D. Ill.August 23, 2016

1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS ________________________________ ) CHRISTINE HARDERS, et al. ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) CIVIL ACTION NO.: v. ) ) 3:16-cv-00903-JPG-DGW ) JOHNSON & JOHNSON, et al. ) ) Defendants. ) _______________________________ ) PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO THE JOHNSON & JOHNSON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY ALL PROCEEDINGS COME NOW Plaintiffs Christine Harders, et al., by and through their undersigned counsel, and for their Response in Opposition to the Johnson & Johnson Defendants’ Motion to Stay All Proceedings [CM/ECF Doc. 14] state: The Johnson & Johnson Defendants assert judicial economy and consistency will be promoted by a stay because they speculate a Multi-District Litigation will be formed as the product of a pending petition filed with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. The petition is subject to opposition and is not set for hearing before the JPML until September 29, 2016. More important to this Court’s analysis, though, the instant matter is non-transferrable even if there is an MDL formed. Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Order Deeming this Removed Lawsuit a “Mass Action” Under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(11)(B), and Notice of All Plaintiffs that No Plaintiff Requests Transfer Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407. [CM/ECF Doc. 29]. The status as a “Mass Action” bars transfer of the suit “to any other court.” 28 U.S.C. § Case 3:16-cv-00903-DRH-DGW Document 32 Filed 08/23/16 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #309 2 1332(d)(11)(C)(i). Since this matter is not transferrable to an MDL even if one is formed sometime in the future, judicial economy and consistency are not served by halting this case. On the other hand, Plaintiffs have each been diagnosed with a disease that statistically has a less than 45% survival rate five years post-diagnosis. Every day that passes is another step toward denying many of these plaintiffs their day in Court. Accordingly, tremendous prejudice is inherent in Defendants’ Motion to Stay. Defendants’ Motion for Stay must be denied. Dated: August 23, 2016 Respectfully Submitted, ONDER, SHELTON, O’LEARY & PETERSON, LLC /s/ W. Wylie Blair James G. Onder, IL Bar No. 06200444 William W. Blair, IL Bar No. 06285762 Stephanie L. Rados, IL Bar No. 6311318 110 E. Lockwood Ave., 2nd Floor St. Louis, MO 63119 (314) 963-9000 (314) 963-1700 (fax) blair@onderlaw.com onder@onderlaw.com rados@onderlaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs Case 3:16-cv-00903-DRH-DGW Document 32 Filed 08/23/16 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #310 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 23rd day of August, 2016, the foregoing Entry of Appearance was filed via the Court's ECF system, which will send notice of such filings to all counsel of record. ONDER, SHELTON, O'LEARY & PETERSON, LLC /s/ W. Wylie Blair Case 3:16-cv-00903-DRH-DGW Document 32 Filed 08/23/16 Page 3 of 3 Page ID #311