Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02260/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02260-0/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 - 06cv2260w

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DARREN MCMAHON,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO: 06-CV-2260 W (WMc)

ORDER (1) DEFERRING

RULING ON PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO REMAND AND

(2) SUA SPONTE STAYING

CASE

v.

MERCK & COMPANY, INC., a

corporation; MCKESSON

CORPORATION, a corporation;

DOES 1 to 50, inclusive,

Defendants.

On October 6, 2006, Defendant Merck & Co., Inc., removed this case from the

Los Angles Superior Court to this Court. The Notice of Removal states that Merck

intends to seek transfer of this case to the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Louisiana (the “transferee court”), which is handling the Multidistrict

Litigation case, In re Vioxx Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1657.

This case is one of 16 Vioxx-related cases assigned to this Court, and is one of

approximately 140 filed in this District. Each of these cases was commenced by the

plaintiff filing a Notice of Adoption of Master Complaint in connection with Judicial

Counsel Coordination Proceeding No. 4247, In re Vioxx® Cases in the state-court

action (the “Coordinated State Vioxx Cases”). 

Case 3:06-cv-02260-W-WMC Document 4 Filed 11/03/06 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 - 06cv2260w

On October 13, 2006, Plaintiff filed a motion to remand this case to state court.

On that same date, motions to remand were also filed in the other Vioxx-related cases

assigned to this Court. 

After the motions to remand were filed, this Court received a Conditional

Transfer Order (“CTO”) from the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“JPMDL”)

transferring the majority of Vioxx-related cases to the transferee court. On October 26,

2006, however, the JPMDL notified this Court that a notice of opposition to the CTO

was filed, thereby staying the transfer. The notice also states that the parties will have

the opportunity to fully brief the question of transfer and that the matter will be

considered at a bimonthly JPMDL hearing session.

Because this case was among the last of the Vioxx-related cases removed to this

Court, it is not currently subject to the JPMDL’s CTO. However, because Merck

intends to seek transfer of this case to the transferee court, and in light of the JPMDL’s

CTO on the other Coordinated State Vioxx Cases, the Court anticipates that this case

will also be subject to a conditional transfer order. For this reason, the Court will defer

ruling on Plaintiff’s motion to remand. Jackson v. Johnson & Johnson, Inc., No. 01-

2113 DA, 2001 WL 34048067, at *6 (W.D.Tenn. April 3, 2001) (“The general rule is

for federal courts to defer ruling on pending motions to remand in MDL litigation until

after the JPMDL has transferred the case to the MDL panel.”). 

In addition to deferring on the ruling, this Court exercises its inherent power to

stay this case pending a final determination from the JPMDL on whether this case will

be transferred to the transferee court. As discussed in Rivers v. Walt Disney Co., 980

F. Supp. 1358 (C.D. Cal. 1997), a district court has the inherent power to stay

proceedings. Id. at 1360. “This power to stay 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.’” Id. (quoting Landis v. North

American Co., 229 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)); see also Leyva v. Certified Grocers of Cal.,

Ltd., 593 F.2d 857, 863–864 (9th Cir. 1979) (trial court may stay matter pending

Case 3:06-cv-02260-W-WMC Document 4 Filed 11/03/06 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 - 06cv2260w

resolution of judicial administrative, or arbitral proceedings) (citations omitted).

In deciding whether to stay an action, a district court “must weight competing

interests and consider the effects of the stay on the Court’s docket, on counsel and on

the litigants.” Crown Central Petroleum Corp. v. Dep’t of Energy, 102 F.R.D. 95, 98–99

(D. Md. 1984). Imposing a stay in this case will delay resolution of Plaintiff’s motion to

remand, and it may delay the ultimate resolution of this case. However, it will also

preserve judicial resources, and avoid the possibility of conflicting rulings. This is

especially true given the number of Vioxx-related cases recently assigned to this Court

(16), and this District (approximately 140). It will also conserve the parties’ resources.

By imposing a stay in this case, the parties may focus on the issue of transfer, and

depending on the outcome of that issue, tailor their motion to remand, either to this

Court or the transferee court.

For these reasons, the Court sua sponte stays this case pending a final

determination from the JPMDL on the issue of transfer. Merck shall immediately notify

the Court when this issue has been resolved.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 3, 2006

Hon. Thomas J. Whelan

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-02260-W-WMC Document 4 Filed 11/03/06 Page 3 of 3