Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00034/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00034-0/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

MOSETTA BERNSTINE,

NO. CIV. S-07-0034 WBS KJM

Plaintiff, NO. CIV. S-07-0051 WBS KJM

NO. CIV. S-07-0073 WBS KJM

v.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: 

MERCK & COMPANY, INC., a MOTION TO REMAND AND MOTION TO

corporation; MCKESSON STAY

CORPORATION, a corporation;

AMERISOURCEBERGEN DRUG

CORPORATION, a corporation; and

DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,

Defendants.

_____________________________

BARBARA FORD DANIELS,

Plaintiff,

v.

MERCK & COMPANY, INC., a

corporation; MCKESSON 

CORPORATION, a corporation;

AMERISOURCEBERGEN DRUG

CORPORATION, a corporation; and

DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,

Defendants.

______________________________

Case 2:07-cv-00034-WBS -KJM Document 17 Filed 04/24/07 Page 1 of 5
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

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand opines that ABC’s 1

principal place of business is in California, but admits that

such a conclusion is mere speculation. (Mot. to Remand 4 n.1.)

2

ISHMAEL HAQQ,

Plaintiff,

v.

MERCK & COMPANY, INC., a

corporation; MCKESSON 

CORPORATION, a corporation;

AMERISOURCEBERGEN DRUG

CORPORATION, a corporation; and

DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

Plaintiffs brought these related actions in the

California Superior Court in and for the County of Los Angeles

for damages related to use of the drug Vioxx. The actions were

removed to this court based on diversity jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 1441. Plaintiffs now move to remand state court. 

Defendant Merck moves instead to stay the cases pending transfer

to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of

Louisiana pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

Defendant Merck is a pharmaceutical company

incorporated and having its principal place of business in New

Jersey. Defendant McKesson Corporation (“McKesson”) is a

California corporation, and defendant AmerisourceBergen Drug

Corporation (“ABC”) is a corporation doing business in

California, both of which serve as distributors of Merck 1

Case 2:07-cv-00034-WBS -KJM Document 17 Filed 04/24/07 Page 2 of 5
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

Conditional Transfer Order 83 marked these three cases 2

as transferrable to the MDL proceedings. MDL Panel Docket No.

05-1657 (E.D. La. Feb. 1, 2007) (CTO-83) (docketed Feb. 20,

2007). Plaintiffs opposed transfer on February 20, 2007. Id. 

Consequently, actual transfer of this action has been delayed

pending resolution of that issue by the MDL court.

3

pharmaceuticals. Prior to September, 2004, Merck manufactured

and marketed Vioxx, a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug used to

treat arthritis and acute pain. However, on September 30, 2004,

Merck voluntarily withdrew Vioxx from the market in light of

evidence that patients taking the drug experienced cardiovascular

complications. Plaintiffs all allege damages resulting from use

of Vioxx.

On February 16, 2005, the Judicial Panel on

Multidistrict Litigation (“MDL”) consolidated 138 federal cases

involving Vioxx and transferred them to the Eastern District of

Louisiana. See MDL Panel Docket No. 05-1657 (E.D. La. Feb. 20,

2007) (Conditional Transfer Order (“CTO”)-83). At last count,

5,932 additional Vioxx cases had been transferred there. See MDL

Panel Docket No. 05-1657 (E.D. La. Apr. 13, 2007) (CTO-91).

Plaintiffs contend that remand is necessary because

Merck’s removal of these actions based on diversity jurisdiction

was improper. Defendant Merck moves to stay these actions in

light of an expected decision by the MDL court to transfer them.2

II. Discussion

The power to stay proceedings “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). Moreover, a stay, and deference to the MDL

Case 2:07-cv-00034-WBS -KJM Document 17 Filed 04/24/07 Page 3 of 5
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

It is unclear whether the addition of ABC as a 3

defendant will destroy diversity. Regardless, assuming this to

be true, the removal and fraudulent joinder analysis does not

change, as all parties concede that McKesson is a California

corporation.

4

transferee court, is particularly appropriate when the parties

contest issues that are “likely to arise in other actions

pending” in the consolidated proceedings. Conroy v. Fresh Del

Monte Produce Inc., 325 F. Supp. 2d 1049, 1053 (N.D. Cal. 2004).

On January 25, 2006, this court issued a stay in Leeson

v. Merck & Co., No. 05-2240. With the exception of ABC being

named as a defendant, these cases are identical to Leeson in

almost all respects. That case involved a similar plaintiff’s 3

motion to remand and a Merck motion for a stay, pending

resolution of plaintiff’s objections to transfer to the MDL

court. Significantly, the parties in Leeson also disputed

whether defendant McKesson had been fraudulently joined, an issue

which will determine whether plaintiffs’ cases against defendant

Merck will proceed in the Los Angeles Coordinated Proceeding for

Vioxx products liability cases or in the federal MDL in

Louisiana. 

For the reasons stated in the order in Leeson, the

court will also stay these cases. After the transfer is

complete, the MDL court will be in the best position to provide a

uniform answer to whether McKesson and/or ABC were fraudulently

joined for the purpose of defeating diversity jurisdiction.

In so holding, the undersigned continues a recent trend

in this court to stay the Vioxx products liability cases against

Merck pending transfer to the federal MDL. See Welch v. Merck &

Case 2:07-cv-00034-WBS -KJM Document 17 Filed 04/24/07 Page 4 of 5
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

5

Co., No. S-05-2267, slip op. (E.D. Cal. Feb. 3, 2006); Lame Bull

v. Merck & Co., No. S-05-2465, slip op. (E.D. Cal. Jan. 23,

2006); Parker ex rel. Dunn v. Merck & Co., No. S-05-2446, slip

op. (E.D. Cal. Jan. 24, 2006); Crook v. Merck & Co., No. S-05-

2436, minute order (E.D. Cal. Jan. 19, 2006). The approach

emerging in this district is also consistent with decisions in

the Northern and Southern Districts of California. See, e.g.,

Johnson v. Merck & Co., No. 05-02881, slip op. at 2 (N.D. Cal.

Oct. 3, 2005); In re Vioxx Prod. Liability Cases, No. 05-0943,

slip op. at 5 (S.D. Cal. July 11, 2005). In the interest of

judicial economy and to further the consistency that MDL

proceedings aim to provide, staying the instant actions is

appropriate.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:

(1) defendant’s motions to stay be, and the same hereby

are, GRANTED;

(2) plaintiffs’ motions to remand be, and the same 

hereby are, DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

DATED: April 23, 2007

Case 2:07-cv-00034-WBS -KJM Document 17 Filed 04/24/07 Page 5 of 5