Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-05151/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-05151-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Petition for Removal

---

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

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRANCIS MCCONVILLE and

VIRGILIO RABUCO,

 Plaintiffs,

 v.

GUIDANT CORPORATION, et al. 

 

 Defendants.

_____________________________/

No. C 06-5151 WDB

ORDER CONTINUING HEARING ON

PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO REMAND 

 

On September 5, 2006, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Remand to be heard on

Wednesday, October 18, 2006. On September 11, 2006, however, the Court received a letter

from the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("MDL panel") with notification that this

action was subject to a conditional transfer order and, unless a party opposed the transfer

within fifteen days, the matter would be transferred to the Honorable Donovan W. Frank in

the United States District Court for the District on Minnesota. Indeed, a party did oppose the

transfer and, accordingly, on September 25, 2006, the Court received another letter from the

MDL panel notifying the Court that an opposition had been filed, and that this Court retained

jurisdiction of the action until any transfer ruling became effective. 

Given the pending opposition on the conditional transfer order, and in the interest of

uniformity of decisions in similar actions, the Court now VACATES AND CONTINUES the

October 18, 2006, hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand. Within five court days after the

Case 4:06-cv-05151-WDB Document 18 Filed 09/28/06 Page 1 of 2
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

MDL panel rules on whether this action will be transferred, counsel for Plaintiffs must file

a notice of the MDL panel's decision. Once the Court is notified of the ruling, and should

the MDL panel decide that the action will not be transferred, the Court promptly will set a

new date to hear Plaintiff's Motion. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: September 28, 2006

/s/ Wayne D. Brazil

 

WAYNE D. BRAZIL

United States Magistrate Judge

Copies to:

All parties,

WDB, Stats

Case 4:06-cv-05151-WDB Document 18 Filed 09/28/06 Page 2 of 2