Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01486/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01486-0/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

11cv1486

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES LINGLE, M.D.,

Plaintiff,

v.

DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 11cv1486 L(MDD)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

STAY ALL PROCEEDINGS [doc. #6]

Defendants DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., Johnson & Johnson Services, Inc., and Johnson &

Johnson move to stay this case pending a transfer decision by the Joint Panel on Multidistrict

Litigation (“MDL”). Plaintiff moves to remand this action. Both motions have been fully

briefed. The Court finds these matters suitable for determination on the papers submitted and

without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1). 

A. Background

Plaintiff filed this action on June 9, 2011, in the Superior Court for the State of California,

County of San Diego, alleging injuries as a result of having a Pinnacle Acetabular Cup System

implanted. The device was manufactured and sold by defendant DuPuy. Defendants removed

this action on the basis of the Court’s diversity jurisdiction even though defendant Thomas P.

Schmalzried, M.D. is a citizen of California. Defendants contend that Dr. Schmalzried was

fraudulently named in order to defeat the Court’s jurisdiction.

Case 3:11-cv-01486-L-MDD Document 48 Filed 11/17/11 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

2 11cv1486

On May 23, 2011, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation issued an order

establishing MDL No. 2244, In re: DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., Pinnacle Hip Implant Products

Liability Litigation, before Judge James E. Kinkeade of the United States District Court for the

Northern District of Texas. DePuy sought the transfer of this action to that proceeding. 

A Conditional Transfer Order was filed on August 4, 2011; however, plaintiff has

opposed the transfer with the MDL Panel. To date, the MDL Panel has not issued an order

directed to plaintiff’s opposition to transfer of the action. 

As noted, defendant seeks to stay this action pending the decision of the MDL Panel

concerning the transfer of this case to consolidated pretrial proceedings in the MDL court. 

“[T]he 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). “Often, deference to

the MDL court for resolution of a motion to remand provides an opportunity for the uniformity,

consistency, and predictability in litigation that underlies the MDL system.” Conroy v. Fresh Del

Monte Produce Inc., 325 F. Supp.2d 1049, 1053 (N.D.Cal.2004). But theMDL Panel's rules do

not require that an action be stayed by a district court while a motion with the Panel for transfer

is pending: 

The pendency of a motion, order to show cause, conditional transfer order or

conditional remand order before the Panel concerning transfer or remand of an

action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 does not affect or suspend orders and pretrial

proceedings in the district court in which the action is pending and does not in any

way limit the pretrial jurisdiction of that court.

J.P.M.L. Rule 1.5. 

"Whether or not to grant a stay is within the court's discretion and it is appropriate when it

serves the interests of judicial economy and efficiency." Rivers v. Walt Disney Co., 980 F. Supp.

1358, 1360 (C.D. Cal. 1997)). When considering whether to stay proceedings pending a motion

before the Panel, factors to consider include: (1) conserving judicial resources and avoiding

duplicative litigation; (2) hardship and inequity to the moving party if the action is not stayed;

and (3) potential prejudice to the non-moving party. See In re iPhone Application Litig., 2011

WL 2149102, at *2 (N.D. Cal. May 31, 2011); Falk v. GMC, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80864, *6

Case 3:11-cv-01486-L-MDD Document 48 Filed 11/17/11 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

3 11cv1486

(N.D. Cal. Oct. 22, 2007).

In opposing the motion to stay, plaintiff contends that the court should first consider his

motion to remand rather than stay the action. But this argument fails to take into consideration

that MDL courts regularly consider remand motions after cases have been transferred. This

occurs because deferring to the MDL judge allows for judicial efficiency and consistent rulings

on remand motions including those that are based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 

Deferring to the MDL is most appropriate where the motion “raises issues likely to arise

in other actions pending in the MDL transferee court.” Id.; see also, e.g., Shields v.

Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 232 F.Supp.2d 715, 718 (E.D. Tex.2002); Franklin v. Merck & Co.,

Inc., 2007 U.S. District LEXIS 22671, at *2, 2007 WL 792233 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 14, 2007).

Plaintiff argues that his pending remand motion raises the unique issue of whether diversity

jurisdiction exists based on defendant’s contention that Dr. Schmalzried was fraudulently joined

to defeat federal jurisdiction. DePuy has noted several other cases where plaintiffs have named

Dr. Schmalzried and the cases were transferred to the Pinnacle Cup System MDL proceeding,

some of which have or will have remand motions filed. 

 Because the same jurisdictional issues present may arise in other cases transferred to the

MDL proceeding and are likely to be addressed uniformly by the MDL Panel, issuance of a stay

satisfies the Court's interest in avoiding duplicative litigation. See Rivers, 980 F.Supp. at 1360.

Further, plaintiff has made no showing that he will be prejudiced by a stay pending

resolution of the transfer order. The MDL Panel is expected to timely issue a final decision

concerning the possible transfer and consolidation of this case. Thus, the Court will defer ruling

on plaintiff’s motion for remand. 

Having carefully considered the arguments of the parties and the relevant case law, the

Court finds that defendant has sufficiently demonstrated that temporarily staying this action

pending the MDL Panel's ruling on the motion to transfer promotes judicial economy, will not

unduly prejudice plaintiff, and will avoid prejudice to both parties stemming from potentially

duplicative efforts. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED defendant's motion to stay is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall file a joint status report 30 days after the

Case 3:11-cv-01486-L-MDD Document 48 Filed 11/17/11 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

4 11cv1486

filing date of this Order detailing the status of the motion before the MDL Panel, and every 30

days thereafter until the MDL Panel issues its decision concerning the transfer of this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: November 17, 2011

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

COPY TO: 

HON. MITCHELL D. DEMBIN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL

Case 3:11-cv-01486-L-MDD Document 48 Filed 11/17/11 Page 4 of 4