Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03489/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03489-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Personal Injury

---

U

NIT

E

D

ST

A

T

ES

DIST

RIC

T

CO

U

R

T

For the Northern District of California

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

UNIT

E

D

ST

A

T

ES

DIST

RIC

T

CO

U

R

T

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MAXINE BEAUCHAMP

Plaintiff(s),

v.

MERCK & CO., INC.

Defendant(s).

_____________________________________/

No. C 05-03489 MHP

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

Re: Motion to Stay

On August 8, 2005, plaintiff MAXINE BEAUCHAMP filed a complaint against MERCK

& CO., INC. in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Shasta. The

complaint seeks damages allegedly resulting from plaintiff’s use of Vioxx, a drug manufactured by

Merck. On August 29, 2005, Merck removed the action to this court on the basis of diversity

jurisdiction. Presently before the court is Merck’s motion to stay the action pending its transfer to

the multidistrict litigation (“MDL”) proceeding that has been established to deal with the large

volume of Vioxx-related cases in federal court. 

The power to stay proceedings in the interest of judicial economy is an inherent power left to

the discretion of the court. Landis v. North Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). Upon entry of this

order, Merck’s motion to stay shall be deemed submitted. Unless plaintiff timely files a motion to

remand, Merck’s motion to stay will be GRANTED and further proceedings in this action shall be

STAYED pending transfer of the action to MDL Proceeding No. 1657. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 24, 2005

_______________________________

MARILYN HALL PATEL

United States District Court Judge

Northern District of California