Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00067/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00067-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STANFORD JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

 v.

MERCK & COMPANY, INC., a corporation;

McKESSON CORPORATION, a corporation;

AMERISOURCEBERGEN DRUG

CORPORATION, a corporation; DOES 1 to

100; PHARMACEUTICAL DEFENDANT

DOES 101 to 200, and DISTRIBUTOR DOES

201 to 300, inclusive,

Defendants. /

No. C 07-00067 WHA

ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO

STAY PROCEEDINGS

INTRODUCTION

In this pharmaceutical products-liability case, defendant Merck & Co., Inc. moves to

stay this action pending a potential transfer to a multi-district litigation proceeding. Plaintiff

Stanford Johnson moves to remand this action to state court for lack of subject-matter

jurisdiction due to the absence of complete diversity. This order GRANTS defendant’s motion

for a temporary stay and defers ruling on plaintiff’s motion to remand. 

STATEMENT

This is one of two motions for a stay pending transfer to an MDL proceeding currently

before the Court. Although arising in different actions, the facts pertinent to the motions to stay

Case 3:07-cv-00067-WHA Document 21 Filed 03/08/07 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

are nearly identical. Indeed, counsel for defendants and plaintiffs are the same in both actions,

as were the briefs submitted. 

Defendant Merck is a pharmaceutical company that manufactured the anti-inflammatory

drug known commonly as VIOXX®. This products-liability case is one of a large number of

actions filed after Merck voluntarily withdrew the drug from the market in September 2004. On

February 15, 2005, an MDL panel transferred 149 actions pending at the time to the United

States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana for coordinated or consolidated

pretrial proceedings before the Honorable Judge Eldon E. Fallon. In re VIOXX Products

Liability Litigation, 360 F. Supp. 2d 1352 (J.P.M.L. 2005). Conditional transfer orders have

since been issued for tag-along cases (Thomas Decl. ¶ 5). Approximately 2500 VIOXX®-

related actions have been stayed in federal district courts across the country. Of these, over 350

have pending motions to remand (Thomas Reply Decl. ¶ 2). Merck notified the MDL panel that

the above-captioned case was a potential tag-along action on January 12, 2007 (id. at ¶ 3). A

conditional transfer order issued on February 1, 2007 (ibid.). Merck now moves for a

temporary stay of this action.

Plaintiff Stanford Johnson was prescribed VIOXX® by his physicians, Dr. Louise Nurre

and Dr. M. Lewandowski. He alleges that he has suffered myocardial infarction and related

problems as a result of ingesting the drug (Compl. ¶ 4). Johnson commenced this action on

September 21, 2006, by filing a notice of adoption of the master complaint in California state

court. In it, he alleges claims of (1) strict liability for failure to warn; (2) negligence; (3)

negligence per se; (4) breach of implied warranty; (5) breach of express warranty; (6) deceit by

concealment; (7) negligent misrepresentation; (8) violation of California Business and

Professions Code Sections 17200 and 17500; and (9) violation of California Civil Code Section

1750. Plaintiff asks for general and punitive damages, as well as medical monitoring costs,

injunctive relief, and disgorgement of defendants’ profits from the drug. 

Johnson filed a motion to remand the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction

because of the absence of complete diversity of parties. His motion was filed on February 1,

2007, but was improperly noticed for hearing. It was later renoticed for March 22, 2007, but

Case 3:07-cv-00067-WHA Document 21 Filed 03/08/07 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

plaintiff asks that it be heard on an expedited basis in light of the pending conditional transfer

order. Plaintiff is a resident of California, as is defendant McKesson Corporation. Merck is

headquartered elsewhere, while AmerisourceBergen’s citizenship is uncertain. 

A hearing on defendant’s motion to stay proceedings was held on March 8, 2007. 

Plaintiff did not appear. 

ANALYSIS

The power to grant a temporary stay “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). Plaintiff argues

that the Court should rule on his motion for remand before deciding to stay this action despite

its being filed later. Whether a motion to remand or a motion to stay should be decided first,

however, is “extremely sensitive to the facts of the case.” Burse v. Purdue Pharma Co., 2004

WL 1125055 at *1 (N.D. Cal. 2004). In these actions, the MDL panel correctly noted that a

remand motion can just as easily be presented to and decided by the transferee judge (Thomas

Decl. Exh. C. at 2). There are a large number of VIOXX®-related actions that have been stayed

by other federal district courts despite pending motions to remand (id. at ¶ 6). Of the actions

stayed, a number of the actions from California have faced the same issue raised here by

plaintiff: whether the distributor defendants were fraudulently joined to defeat diversity. See,

e.g. Johnson v. Merck & Co., Inc., Case No. C-05-02881 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 4, 2005) (Patel, J.);

Leeson v. Merck & Co., Inc.,, Case No. C-05-02240-WBS-PAN (E.D. Cal. Jan, 27, 2006). 

Plaintiff argues that the merits of his motion to remand should be addressed before a

motion to stay is granted. In view of the MDL, however, doing so would unnecessarily

duplicate work, and could lead to inconsistent results. Plaintiff also argues at length in his

memorandum in support of his motion to remand that defendant cannot show fraudulent joinder

here because Judge Chaney of the California VIOXX Coordinated Proceeding in California

Superior Court ruled that pharmaceutical distributors, such as McKesson, could be held liable

for failure to warn (Woodruff Decl. Exh. A). This result will likely be taken into consideration

Case 3:07-cv-00067-WHA Document 21 Filed 03/08/07 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

4

in deciding similar motions to remand, however, to prevent inconsistent results, this should be

done by the MDL panel. 

It would be an inefficient use of resources to unnecessarily duplicate the efforts of the

transferee judge, who will undoubtedly face most (if not all) of the same issues in dealing with

the other pending remand motions. Staying the proceedings will best serve the interests of

judicial economy. Moreover, granting Merck’s motion for a temporary stay avoids the

possibility of inconsistent rulings, which is particularly important here, because a decision to

remand is not subject to appeal. 28 U.S.C. 1447(d). Finally, plaintiff has not shown that he

would be unduly prejudiced by the stay. His conclusory statement regarding his deteriorating

helath is insufficient. The MDL panel has already been notified of this potential tag-along

action, and a conditional transfer order issued on February 1, 2007. Any delay will be minimal. 

CONCLUSION

For all the above-stated reasons, defendant’s motion for a temporary stay pending the

potential transfer of this action is GRANTED. In the interim, this order declines to rule on

plaintiff’s motion to remand. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 8, 2007 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:07-cv-00067-WHA Document 21 Filed 03/08/07 Page 4 of 4