Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01446/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01446-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 367
Nature of Suit: TORTS - Personal Injury - Health Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury/Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JACQUELINE R. ROMINE,

Plaintiff,

v.

PFIZER INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:24-cv-01446-KES-CDB 

ORDER ON STIPULATION STAYING 

ACTION PENDING RULING ON 

PETITION FOR MULTIDISTRICT 

LITIGATION 

(Doc. 14) 

ORDER VACATING FEBRUARY 24, 

2025 SCHEDULING CONFERENCE 

(Doc. 2)

Background

Plaintiff Jacqueline R. Romine (“Plaintiff”) initiated this action with the filing of a 

complaint on November 25, 2024, alleging claims for damages against Defendants Pfizer, Inc., 

Pharacia & Upjohn Co. LLC, Pharmacia LLC, and Viatris Inc. (“Defendants”) arising from 

Defendants’ wrongful conduct in connection with the development, design, testing, 

manufacturing, labeling, packaging, promoting, advertising, marketing, distribution, and selling 

of medroxyprogesterone acetate (“MPA”), also known as depot medroxyprogesterone acetate 

(“DMPA”), and as a prescription drug under the trade name Depo-Provera® (“Depo-Provera”). 

(Doc. 1 ¶ 1). Defendants’ respective responses to the complaint are due to be filed by lateDecember 2024 or early-January 2025. (Docs. 9-13).

Case 1:24-cv-01446-KES-CDB Document 15 Filed 12/20/24 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

Stipulated Request to Stay

Pending before the Court is the parties’ stipulated request for order staying the action 

pending a determination of a petition before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation 

(“JPML”). (Doc. 14). The parties represent that they are aware of at least 33 other actions 

pending in United States District Courts in which the plaintiff is alleging personal injuries 

relating to the use of Depo-Provera (“Depo-Provera cases”). (Id. at 3). The parties represent that 

on November 26, 2024, the plaintiffs in several of the Depo-Provera cases petitioned the JPML 

to centralize this and other Depo-Provera cases into a Multidistrict Litigation (“MDL”) (the 

“Petition”). (Id.). The parties represent that the Petition is set for a hearing before the JPML on 

January 30, 2025, and is expected to be decided upon in early February 2025. (Id.). 

In light of the Petition, the parties have agreed to stay this action through at least 

February 15, 2025, pending the JPML’s determination of the Petition. (Id.). The parties request 

that the Court stay all pending deadlines and activities in this case. (Id.). The parties agree that 

if the JPML has not ruled on the Petition by February 15, 2025, the parties shall file a joint status 

update with the Court regarding the status of the Petition and whether an extension of the stay is 

needed. (Id. at 4). The parties agree that if the JPML has denied the Petition to centralize the 

instant action and other actions, Defendants shall have through and until 21 days after the JPML 

rules on the anticipated Petition to respond to the complaint. (Id.). Thus, the parties jointly 

request that this action be stayed until the JPML rules on the pending Petition or until February 

15, 2025, whichever is sooner. (Id.).

“[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); Lockyer v. Mirant 

Corp, 398 F.3d 1098, 1109 (9th Cir. 2005). Deciding whether to grant a stay pending the 

outcome of other proceedings “calls for the exercise of judgment, which must weigh competing 

interests and maintain an even balance.” United States v. Howen, No. 1:21-cv-00106-DADSAB, 2022 WL 1004832, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 4, 2022) (quoting Landis, 299 U.S. at 254). “[I]f 

there is even a fair possibility that the . . . stay will work damage to someone else, the party 

Case 1:24-cv-01446-KES-CDB Document 15 Filed 12/20/24 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

seeking the stay must make out a clear case of hardship or inequity.” Lockyer, 398 F.3d at 1112; 

United States v. Aerojet Rocketdyne Holdings, Inc., 381 F. Supp. 3d 1240, 1250 (E.D. Cal. May 

8, 2019). 

In considering whether to grant a stay, this Court must weigh several factors, including 

“[1] the possible damage which may result from the granting of a stay, [2] the hardship or 

inequity which a party may suffer in being required to go forward, and [3] the orderly course of 

justice measured in terms of the simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions of 

law which could be expected to result from a stay.” CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th 

Cir. 1962) (citing Landis, 299 U.S. at 254–55). In granting and lifting stays, a court must weigh 

“the length of the stay against the strength of the justification given for it.” Yong v. I.N.S., 208 

F.3d 1116, 1119 (9th Cir. 2000). “If a stay is especially long or its term is indefinite, [courts] 

require a greater showing to justify it.” Id. A stay may be warranted in deference to ongoing, 

parallel proceedings “regardless of whether the separate proceedings are ‘judicial, administrative, 

or arbitral in character, and does not require that the issues in such proceedings are necessarily 

controlling of the action before the court.’” Scottsdale Indemnity Co. v. Yamada, No. 1:18-cv00801-DAD-EPG, 2019 WL 7601833, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2019) (quoting Leyva v. Certified 

Grocers of Cal., Ltd., 593 F.2d 857, 863-64 (9th Cir. 1979)).

Here, the interests of judicial economy and efficiency are served by staying this case until 

the Petition pending before the JPML has been decided. Proceeding with the scheduling and 

litigating of this action risks wasting judicial resources, as the Court will have to familiarize itself 

with a case that may soon be centralized into a multidistrict litigation.

The Court does not find that the short stay anticipated will cause any hardship. The 

parties stipulated to the request to stay and the case will not be delayed significantly given the 

early stage of the litigation. The orderly course of justice weighs toward the grant of the 

requested stay in order to avoid complicating of the issues or duplicative litigation should the 

Petition be granted and the Depo-Provera cases, including the instant action, be centralized into a 

Multidistrict Litigation. Furthermore, district courts within the Ninth Circuit routinely find good 

cause to stay a case during the pendency of a petition before the JPML. See, e.g., Sprint 

Case 1:24-cv-01446-KES-CDB Document 15 Filed 12/20/24 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

Commc'ns Co. L.P. v. Pac. Bell Tel. Co., No. 2:14-cv-01257-MCE-CK, 2014 WL 7239474, at *2 

(E.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2014) (“The interests of judicial economy and efficiency are served by 

staying this case until the motion before the MDL Panel has been decided.”); see also A.H.M. v. 

Uber Techs., Inc., No. 23-cv-03482-JSC, 2023 WL 6199179 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 22, 2023); Hulsh v. 

Bayer Healthcare Pharms. Inc., No. 15-cv-04801-JST, 2016 WL 7168398 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 11, 

2016). Therefore, because the Landis factors weigh toward granting of the stay, the Court finds 

that a stay of all proceedings is appropriate in this case.

For good cause shown in the parties’ stipulation, and the pending decision on the Petition 

before the JPML for which the parties agree Plaintiff would be subject to centralization into a 

Multidistrict Litigation, this action will be stayed pending the JPML’s determination of the 

Petition. 

Conclusion and Order

Accordingly, in light of the parties’ representations and good cause appearing, IT IS 

HEREBY ORDERED:

1. This action is STAYED pending a ruling from the JPML on the Petition that is set for 

hearing on January 30, 2025, with an expected decision in early February 2025;

2. The parties are DIRECTED to file a joint status report informing the Court of the status 

of the Petition pending before the JPML by February 15, 2025, and every (14) days

thereafter should the Petition remain undecided; 

3. Defendants SHALL FILE a response to the complaint within 21 days following a denial 

of the Petition; and

4. All pending court dates, including the Initial Scheduling Conference set for February 24, 

2025, are VACATED, to be reset as necessary following the JPML’s determination of 

the Petition.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 20, 2024 ___________________ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-01446-KES-CDB Document 15 Filed 12/20/24 Page 4 of 4