Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01941/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01941-1/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

In a motion set for oral argument on October 30, 2006, 1

plaintiff seeks a remand to state court and attorneys’ fees

incurred in connection with that motion. 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

MARY GROVE,

NO. CIV. S-06-1941 WBS KJM

Plaintiff,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: 

MOTION TO STAY 

MERCK & COMPANY, INC.; and

MCKESSON CORPORATION,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

Plaintiff Mary Grove brought this action in the

Superior Court in and for the County of Los Angeles for damages

related to a stroke allegedly caused by the drug Vioxx. The

action was removed to this court on August 29, 2006. Defendant

Merck moves the court to stay this case pending transfer to the

Eastern District of Louisiana pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407.1

I. Factual and Procedural Background

Defendant Merck is a pharmaceutical company

Case 2:06-cv-01941-WBS -KJM Document 16 Filed 10/13/06 Page 1 of 4
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

Defendant Merck has submitted a “tag-along letter” 2

notifying the panel of this action on September 5, 2005. (Def.’s

Mot. to Stay 4.) The MDL Panel has issued conditional transfer

2

incorporated and having its principal place of business in New

Jersey. Prior to September, 2004, Merck manufactured and

marketed Vioxx, a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (“NSAID”)

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.

On February 16, 2005, the Judicial Panel on

Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML”) consolidated 138 federal cases

involving Vioxx, including cases against Merck, and transferred

them to the Eastern District of Louisiana. See MDL Panel Docket

Nos. 1657 and 1699, CTO-44 and CTO-18 (Mar. 23, 2006). At that

time, 3,256 additional Vioxx cases had been transferred there. 

Id. That litigation is currently pending before Judge Eldon E.

Fallon.

Plaintiff’s suit is, however, complicated by

plaintiff’s inclusion of a second defendant. In addition to

Merck, the manufacturer defendant, plaintiff is suing the

McKesson Corporation, a California corporation allegedly serving

as primary distributor of pharmaceuticals in the state. (Pl.’s

Opp’n to Def.’s Mot. to Stay 1.) Plaintiff, also a citizen of

California, contends that McKesson’s involvement in this suit

rendered Merck’s removal of this action improper. 

However, defendant moves to stay this action in light

of an expected decision by the MDL court to transfer this matter.2

Case 2:06-cv-01941-WBS -KJM Document 16 Filed 10/13/06 Page 2 of 4
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

orders transferring actions to the panel based on the information

in the tag-along letters. (Id.) Defendant Merck anticipates

that the panel will list this case on a conditional transfer

order within a few weeks of receiving the tag-along letter. 

(Id.)

3

Merck argues that after the transfer is complete, the MDL court

will be in the best position to provide a uniform answer to the

question presented here: whether McKesson was fraudulently joined

for the purpose of defeating diversity jurisdiction. See Carole

Bosch Decl. Ex. A (Oct. 27, 2005 MDL Minute Entry 6) (“Several

remand motions have been filed with the Court. The Court will

deal with these motions as a group in accordance with procedures

to be established in the future.”). 

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

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., slip op., No. 05-2240 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2006). 

That case, which also involved a plaintiff’s motion to remand and

the defendants’ motion to stay, is in many respects identical to

the instant matter. Significantly, the parties in Leeson also

disputed whether defendant McKesson had been fraudulently joined,

Case 2:06-cv-01941-WBS -KJM Document 16 Filed 10/13/06 Page 3 of 4
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

See also Welch v. Merck & Co., Inc., No. S-05-2267, 3

slip op. at 4 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 3, 2006) (documenting “a recent

trend in this court to stay the Vioxx products liability cases

against Merck” pending transfer to the MDL court). 

4

an issue which will determine whether plaintiff’s case against

defendant Merck will proceed in federal or state court. 

Plaintiff has not attempted to distinguish this court’s order in

Leeson. Consequently, for the reasons stated in that order, the

court will also stay this case.3

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendants’ motion to stay

be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED.

DATED: October 12, 2006

Case 2:06-cv-01941-WBS -KJM Document 16 Filed 10/13/06 Page 4 of 4