Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01845/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01845-1/pdf.json

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

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RUTH BEATTY,

NO. CIV. S-06-1845 LKK/GGH

Plaintiff,

v.

MERCK & COMPANY, INC., O R D E R

et al,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff Ruth Beatty commenced this action against Merck &

Co., Inc. (“Merck”) on July 19, 2006 in California Superior Court

for alleged injuries caused by the prescription drug Vioxx. Merck

removed this action to federal court on diversity jurisdiction on

August 17, 2006. Plaintiff now moves to remand, asserting that

removal was improper and that this court lacks jurisdiction. Merck

moves to stay the action pending its transfer to the Judicial Panel

on Multidistrict Litigation (“MDL”) proceeding that has been

established to deal with the large volume of Vioxx-related cases

in federal court.

////

Case 2:06-cv-01845-LKK -GGH Document 16 Filed 10/13/06 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

2

I. Background

This case is one of hundreds of cases regarding Vioxx. On

February 16, 2005, the MDL panel consolidated and transferred

148 federal cases involving Vioxx to the Eastern District of

Louisiana. In re Vioxx Prods. Liab. Litig., 360 F. Supp. 2d

1352 (J.P.M.L. 2005). The MDL panel also held that the “nearly

300 potentially related actions in multiple federal districts .

. . will be treated as potential tag-along cases.” Id. at 1352

n.1. 

Merck asserts, and plaintiff does not dispute, that it will

shortly provide notice to the MDL panel of this action. Merck

expects a conditional transfer order to be issued by the panel

within the next few weeks. See Def.’s Mot. to Stay at 4.

II. Analysis

The power to stay proceedings in the interest of judicial

economy is an inherent power left to the discretion of the

court. Landis v. North Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). In

cases involving similar jurisdictional questions, deference to

the MDL proceeding is often appropriate when “the motion raises

issues likely to arise in other actions pending in [the

consolidated action].” Conroy v. Fresh Del Monte Produce Inc.,

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

Here, Merck asserts that removal is proper because

defendant McKesson, whose presence defeats diversity

jurisdiction, was fraudulently joined. See Def.’s Notice of

Removal at 7. The question of whether McKesson was fraudulently

Case 2:06-cv-01845-LKK -GGH Document 16 Filed 10/13/06 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

 The court is aware that it is departing from its August 15, 1

2005 order on the same issue. See Martin v. Merck & Co., No. S-05-

750, slip op. (E.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2005) (Karlton, J.). Subsequent

developments regarding the MDL Vioxx proceedings justify the

court’s change in position. Namely, since the August order was

issued, over 55 cases from California that involve the identical

jurisdictional issues are now before the MDL judge in the Eastern

District of Louisiana. See Def.’s Opp’n to Pl.’s Mot. for Remand

at 3:16-22. 

3

joined is not unique to the pending case. See, e.g., Lame Bull

v. Merck & Co., et. al, No. 05-2465, slip op. (E.D. Cal. January

24, 2006) (Karlton, J.) (staying case to allow remand to be

decided by MDL judge); Purcell v. Merck & Co., et. al, No. 05-

0443, slip op. (S.D. Cal. June 6, 2005) (same); Johnson v.

Merck & Co., No. C-05-02881, slip op. at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 3,

2005) (same).

Given the number of cases that present this exact

jurisdictional question and the growing number of Vioxx cases

being transferred to the MDL proceeding in the Eastern District

of Louisiana, this court, like several other district courts,

finds that the interest of judicial economy favors staying this

action pending its transfer to the MDL proceeding. For these 1

reasons, the court hereby ORDERS that:

1. Defendant Merck’s motion to stay is GRANTED;

2. Plaintiff’s motion to remand is DENIED;

3. Oral argument on the motions currently set for October 

 23, 2006 at 10:00 a.m. is VACATED; 

4. Upon entry of this order, further proceedings in this 

action shall be STAYED, pending transfer of the action

Case 2:06-cv-01845-LKK -GGH Document 16 Filed 10/13/06 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

4

to MDL Proceeding No. 1657 in the Eastern District of

Louisiana. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: October 12, 2006.

Case 2:06-cv-01845-LKK -GGH Document 16 Filed 10/13/06 Page 4 of 4