Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01977/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01977-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Product Liability

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

KAP SOOK CHOI,

NO. CIV. S-06-1977 WBS DAD

Plaintiff,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: 

MOTION TO STAY 

MERCK & COMPANY, INC.; and

MCKESSON CORPORATION,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

Plaintiff Kap Sook Choi brought this action in the

Superior Court in and for the County of Los Angeles for damages

related to a stroke allegedly caused by the drug Vioxx. The

action was removed to this court on September 1, 2006. Defendant

Merck now moves the court to stay this case pending transfer to

the Eastern District of Louisiana pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407. 

I. Factual and Procedural Background

Defendant Merck is a pharmaceutical company

incorporated and having its principal place of business in New

Jersey. Prior to September, 2004, Merck manufactured and

marketed Vioxx, a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (“NSAID”)

Case 2:06-cv-01977-WBS-DAD Document 17 Filed 10/26/06 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Defendant Merck has submitted a “tag-along letter” 1

which notified the panel of this action on September 5, 2005. 

(Def.’s Mot. to Stay 4.) The MDL Panel has issued conditional

transfer orders transferring actions to the panel based on the

information in similar tag-along letters submitted in other

cases. (Id.) Defendant Merck anticipates that the panel will

list this case on a conditional transfer order within a few weeks

of receiving the tag-along letter. (Id.)

2

used to treat arthritis and acute pain. However, on September

30, 2004, Merck voluntarily withdrew Vioxx from the market in

light of evidence that patients taking the drug experienced

cardiovascular complications.

Multidistrict litigation (“MDL”) against Merck, arising

from consumption of Vioxx, is currently pending in federal court

before Judge Eldon E. Fallon. In re VIOXX Prods. Liab. Litig.,

360 F. Supp. 2d 1352 (J.P.M.L. 2005). On February 16, 2005, the

Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML”) consolidated

138 federal cases involving Vioxx and transferred them to the

Eastern District of Louisiana. See MDL Panel Docket Nos. 1657

and 1699, CTO-44 and CTO-18 (Mar. 23, 2006). 

Plaintiff’s suit is, however, complicated by

plaintiff’s inclusion of a second defendant. In addition to

Merck, the manufacturer defendant, plaintiff is suing McKesson, a

California corporation allegedly serving as the state’s primary

distributor of pharmaceuticals. (Pl.’s Opp’n to Def.’s Mot. to

Stay 1.) Plaintiff, also a citizen of California, contends that

McKesson’s involvement in this suit rendered Merck’s removal of

this action improper. 

However, defendant moves to stay this action in light

of an expected decision by the MDL court to transfer this matter.1

Merck argues that after the transfer is complete, the MDL court

Case 2:06-cv-01977-WBS-DAD Document 17 Filed 10/26/06 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

will be in the best position to provide a uniform answer to the

question presented here: whether McKesson was fraudulently joined

for the purpose of defeating diversity jurisdiction. See Carole

Bosch Decl. Ex. A (Oct. 27, 2005 MDL Minute Entry) (“Several

remand motions have been filed with the Court. The Court will

deal with these motions as a group in accordance with procedures

to be established in the future.”). 

II. Discussion

The power to stay proceedings “is incidental to the

power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the

causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself,

for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S.

248, 254 (1936). Moreover, a stay, and deference to the MDL

transferee court, is particularly appropriate when the parties

contest issues that are “likely to arise in other actions

pending” in the consolidated proceedings. Conroy v. Fresh Del

Monte Produce Inc., 325 F. Supp. 2d 1049, 1053 (N.D. Cal. 2004).

On January 25, 2006, this court issued a stay in Leeson

v. Merck & Co., No. 05-2240. That case, which also involved a

plaintiff’s motion to remand and a defendants’ motion to stay, is

in many respects identical to the instant matter. Significantly,

the parties in Leeson also disputed whether defendant McKesson

had been fraudulently joined, an issue which will determine

whether plaintiff’s case against defendant Merck will proceed in

federal or state court. Plaintiff has not attempted to

Case 2:06-cv-01977-WBS-DAD Document 17 Filed 10/26/06 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Significantly, federal courts throughout the nation 2

have stayed more than 2,500 Vioxx cases, including more than

fifty cases filed in California state court and removed to

federal court based on allegations of the fraudulent joinder of

McKesson Corporation. (Dana A. Blanton Decl. in Supp. of Defs.’

Reply ¶ 2.)

See also Welch v. Merck & Co., Inc., No. S-05-2267, 3

slip op. at 4 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 3, 2006) (documenting “a recent

trend in this court to stay the Vioxx products liability cases

against Merck” pending transfer to the MDL court). 

4

distinguish this court’s order in Leeson. Consequently, for the 2

reasons stated in that order, the court will also stay this case.3

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendants’ motion to stay

be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED.

DATED: October 25, 2006

Case 2:06-cv-01977-WBS-DAD Document 17 Filed 10/26/06 Page 4 of 4