Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01150/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01150-1/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

PIERO BIONDI, et al., )

)

)

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. )

)

GUIDANT CORPORATION, et al., )

)

)

)

Defendants. )

 )

1:06cv01150 AWI DLB

ORDER VACATING HEARING DATE

FOR PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO REMAND

AND STAYING ACTION

On June 15, 2006, Plaintiffs Piero Biondi, Trent Mobley and Paradisa Ruffoni,

individually and as successor in interest to decedent Frank Ruffoni (“Plaintiffs”) filed the instant

products liability action in Fresno County Superior Court. Defendants Guidant Corporation,

Guidant Sales Corporation, Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc., and Boston Scientific (“Defendants”)

removed the action to this Court on August 28, 2006, based on this Court’s diversity jurisdiction. 

Defendants contend that Plaintiffs fraudulently joined Resident Defendants St. Agnes Medical

Center and Fresno Community Hospital and Medical Center in an effort to destroy diversity.

Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the action on September 7, 2006.

Defendants urge the Court to defer ruling on Plaintiffs’ motion and to allow the

Multidistrict Litigation Panel No. 1708, In re Guidant Corp. Implantable Defibrillators Product

Liability Litigation (“MDL”) to resolve the remand issue. On October 6, 2006, the Judicial Panel

on Multidistrict Litigation issued a Conditional Transfer Order (“CTO”) ordering the conditional

Case 1:06-cv-01150-AWI-DLB Document 20 Filed 10/23/06 Page 1 of 2
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

transfer of this action to the MDL proceedings.

Accordingly, pursuant to the CTO, and because the Court finds that the MDL is just as

well situated as this Court to determine the remand issue, the Court VACATES the October 13,

2006, hearing date set for Plaintiffs’ motion to remand and STAYS the instant action pending

notice from the MDL or the parties as the transfer status. If it becomes necessary to hear the

motion to remand at a later date, the parties may file an amended notice of hearing resetting the

motion on the Court’s calendar.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: October 20, 2006 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01150-AWI-DLB Document 20 Filed 10/23/06 Page 2 of 2