Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02465/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02465-0/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES LAME BULL; and LUCINDA

LAME BULL,

NO. CIV. S-05-2465 LKK/DAD

Plaintiffs,

v. O R D E R

MERCK & CO., INC., a 

corporation, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

On November 4, 2005, plaintiffs James Lame Bull and Lucinda

Lame Bull (“plaintiffs”) filed an action in the Superior Court for

the County of Los Angeles against defendants Merck & Co., Inc.

(“Merck”) and McKesson Corporation (“McKesson”) alleging injuries

from their use of the prescription drug Vioxx. On December 6,

2005, Merck removed the action to this court based on diversity

jurisdiction. Plaintiffs now move to remand, asserting that

removal was improper and that this court lacks jurisdiction. Merck

Case 2:05-cv-02465-LKK -DAD Document 27 Filed 01/24/06 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

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. 

I.

BACKGROUND

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

February 16, 2005, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

(“JPML”) consolidated 148 federal cases involving Vioxx and

transferred them to the Eastern District of Louisiana. 

In Re Vioxx Products Liability Litigation, 360 F.Supp.2d 1352

(J.P.M.L 2005). The MDL panel also held that around 300 related

actions in multiple federal districts “will be treated as potential

tag-along cases.” Id. at 1352 n. 1. 

Merck asserts, and plaintiffs do 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. Since

the first transfer order was issued on February 16, 2005, more than

2,500 cases have been transferred to or filed directly to the MDL

Vioxx proceedings. 

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

Case 2:05-cv-02465-LKK -DAD Document 27 Filed 01/24/06 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

3

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. The question of whether McKesson was

fraudulently joined is not unique to the pending case. According

to defendant’s assertion, which plaintiffs do not dispute, there

are “currently more than 25 cases from California in the Vioxx MDL

presenting the identical issue that this case presents – whether

plaintiffs fraudulently joined McKesson . . . under California

law.” Def.’s Opp’n to Pls.’ Mot. to Remand, at 4:20-23. See,

e.g., Purcell v. Merck & Co., et al, No. 05-0443, slip op. (S.D.

Cal. June 6, 2005) (granting defendant’s motion to stay); Johnson

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

2005) (same); Love v. Merck & Co., No. 05-2140 (E.D. Cal. filed

Oct. 24, 2005) (McKesson named as a defendant but case transferred

before motion to remand was filed); Lagden v. Merck & Co., No.

05-0656 (E.D. Cal. filed Apr. 4, 2005) (same).

Given the number of cases that present this exact

jurisdictional question and given the growing number of Vioxx cases

being transferred to the MDL proceeding in the Eastern District of

Louisiana, this court follows the many other district courts in

California in finding that the interest of judicial economy favors

Case 2:05-cv-02465-LKK -DAD Document 27 Filed 01/24/06 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

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

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 25 cases from California that involve the identical

jurisdictional issues are now before the MDL judge in the Eastern

District of Louisiana. Moreover, it is apparent that the majority

of the Vioxx cases that are removed are not, in fact, remanded. 

Defendant Merck asserts, and plaintiffs do not dispute, that the

majority of courts have stayed approximately 200 Vioxx cases with

pending remand motions. See Def.’s Opp’n to Pls.’ Mot. to Remand

at 5:11-12. 

4

staying this action pending its transfer to the MDL proceeding.1

For these reasons, the court hereby ORDERS that:

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

2. Plaintiffs’ motion to remand is DENIED;

3. Oral argument on the motion, currently set for January 30,

2006, is VACATED; and

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

action shall be STAYED, pending transfer of the action to MDL

Proceeding No. 1657 in the Eastern District of Louisiana. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: January 23, 2006

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

SENIOR JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 2:05-cv-02465-LKK -DAD Document 27 Filed 01/24/06 Page 4 of 4