Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01972/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01972-2/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 Because oral argument will not be of material

assistance, the court orders these matters submitted on the

briefs. See E.D. Cal. Local Rule 78-230(h).

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

RONALD CAMERON, et al.,

NO. CIV. S-06-1960 FCD DAD

Plaintiffs,

v.

GUIDANT CORPORATION, 

et al.,

Defendants.

________________________/

CLIFFORD HOSLER, et al.,

NO. CIV. S-06-1972 FCD KJM

Plaintiffs,

v.

GUIDANT CORPORATION, ORDER STAYING ACTIONS

et al.,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

These matters are before the court on plaintiffs’ motions to

remand.1 The court, however, defers ruling on the motions as the

above entitled actions may be transferred to the Multidistrict

Case 2:06-cv-01972-FCD-KJM Document 15 Filed 10/04/06 Page 1 of 3
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

Litigation, MDL No. 1708, In re Guidant Corp. Implantable

Defibrillators Products Liability Litigation, pending in the

United States District Court of Minnesota (“MDL-1708"). Both

actions have been noticed by defendants to the Judicial Panel on

Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML”) as “potential tag-along

actions” for inclusion in MDL-1708. (RJN, Ex A, “Thirty-Ninth

Notice of Potential Tag-Along Actions,” filed Sept. 7, 2006 with

the JPML.)

In light of that notice, the court defers ruling on

plaintiffs’ motions and STAYS all proceedings in these matters in

order to permit time for the JPML to render a decision on the

propriety of the transfer of these actions to MDL-1708. Said

stay is warranted because should the JPML transfer the actions,

allowing the MDL court to decide plaintiffs’ motions to remand

will serve the purposes of efficiency and consistency for which

the MDL process was created. If, however, the cases are not

transferred, the court will lift the stay of the proceedings and

set the motions for remand within 30 days of the order denying

the transfer.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 DATED: October 4, 2006

 /s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

FRANK C. DAMRELL, Jr.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-01972-FCD-KJM Document 15 Filed 10/04/06 Page 2 of 3
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

3

Case 2:06-cv-01972-FCD-KJM Document 15 Filed 10/04/06 Page 3 of 3