Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04911/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04911-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1446 Petition for Removal

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STATE OF CALIFORNIA ex rel.

JAYDEEN VICENTE and JAYDEEN

VICENTE, individually,

Relators,

 v.

ELI LILLY AND CO.,

Defendant. /

No. C 07-04911 CRB

ORDER STAYING ACTION

Relators filed this state law qui tam action in state court and defendant removed to

federal court. Relators seek to recover monies the State of California paid for the

prescription drug Zyprexa. They contend that defendant encouraged physicians to prescribe

Zyprexa for off-label uses (that is, uses not approved by the Food and Drug Administration),

thereby causing pharmacies to submit “false” Medicaid claims to the State for reimbursement

of those prescriptions. Relators also allege that defendant paid “kick backs” to physicians to

encourage them to write prescriptions for Zyprexa.

Now pending before the Court are (1) relators’ motion to remand to state court, (2)

defendant’s motion to stay this action pending a decision by the Judicial Panel on

Mulitdistrict Litigation (“JPML”) on whether to transfer this action to MDL 1596 in the

Eastern District of New York, and (3) defendant’s motion to dismiss. After carefully

Case 3:07-cv-04911-CRB Document 67 Filed 12/13/07 Page 1 of 2
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

G:\CRBALL\2007\4911\orderrestay.wpd 2

considering the parties’ papers and arguments, the Court concludes that oral argument is

unnecessary, see Local Rule 7-1(b) and GRANTS the motion to stay.

The JPML is scheduled to hold a hearing on the transfer issue on January 30, 2007;

thus, any delay from a stay is minimal. Moreover, the MDL court has previously decided the

precise jurisdictional issue raised by relators’ motion to remand. See, e.g., West Virginia v.

Eli Lilly and Co., 476 F. Supp. 2d 230, 234 (E.D.N.Y. 2007); Louisiana ex rel. Foti v. Eli

Lilly and Co., 375 F. Supp. 2d 170 (E.D.N.Y. 2005). Accordingly, the interests of federal

uniformity and judicial economy weigh in favor of a stay. Should the JPML deny transfer of

this action to MDL 1596, relators may renotice their motion to remand on shortened time

since the issues are already fully briefed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 13, 2007 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:07-cv-04911-CRB Document 67 Filed 12/13/07 Page 2 of 2