Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00324/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00324-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MANUEL CHAVEZ and CECILIA

CHAVEZ,

Plaintiffs,

v.

MERCK & COMPANY, INC., MCKESSON

CORP., and DOES 1 - 100, 

Defendants.

CIV-S-06-0324 DFL DAD 

ORDER

This is one of several cases that have been filed in this

court involving defendant Merck and its drug, Vioxx. Almost

without exception, the judges of the court have stayed the

proceedings pending transfer to the multidistrict litigation in

the Eastern District of Louisiana. See Leeson v. Merck & Co.,

Inc., et al, Civ. S-05-2240 WBS PAN slip op. (E.D. Cal. Jan. 27,

2006). Although plaintiffs have filed a request to continue the

hearing date because of a problem with counsel’s email

notification system, the court sees little benefit to plaintiffs

from such a course of action, given the court’s rulings in

Case 2:06-cv-00324-DFL-DAD Document 19 Filed 03/27/06 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 If plaintiffs believe that there is something 1

distinguishing about their action, they may file a motion to

vacate the stay.

2

previous cases presenting precisely the same issues.1

Accordingly, for the reasons stated in Leeson, supra, defendant

Merck & Co., Inc.’s motion to stay is GRANTED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 3/27/2006

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cv-00324-DFL-DAD Document 19 Filed 03/27/06 Page 2 of 2