Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-00202/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-00202-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 368
Nature of Suit: Asbestos Personal Injury - Prod.liab.
Cause of Action: 28:1442 Petition for Removal

---

United States District Court

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TWILA HARTFORD, et. al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ATLAS TURNER INC., et. al.,

Defendants.

MCDONNELL DOUGLAS CORP.,

Removing Defendant.

 /

No. C 05-202 SBA

ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand. After reviewing the papers

filed by the parties, the Court finds that it would benefit from supplemental briefing. 

This action was removed from San Francisco Superior Court by Defendant McDonnell Douglas

Corp. on the grounds that the Court has jurisdiction pursuant to the federal officer removal statute, 28

U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1). The action involves claims for wrongful death arising out of Noel Hartford’s death

from lung cancer, allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos. On April 27, 2005, Defendant McDonnell

Douglas Corp. notified the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML”) that the instant action may be

a tag-along action appropriate for transfer to the Multidistrict Litigation (“MDL”) Transferee Court. 

Accordingly, the Court orders the parties to submit supplemental briefing on the issue of whether

the action should be stayed pending a ruling on transfer to the MDL Transferee Court. The decision to

grant or deny a temporary stay of proceedings pending a ruling on the transfer of the matter to the MDL

Case 4:05-cv-00202-SBA Document 38 Filed 05/11/05 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

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

2

court lies within this Court’s discretion. Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55 (1936);

Good v. Prudential ins. Co. of Am., 5 F. Supp. 2d 804, 809 (N.D. Cal. 1998). Deference to the MDL

court for resolution of a motion to remand may provide the opportunity for the uniformity, consistency, and

predictability in litigation that underlies the multidistrict litigation system. See 28 U.S.C. § 1407. See also,

Gonzalez v. American Home Products, Inc., 223 F. Supp. 2d 803 (S.D. Tex. 2003); Medical Society of

State of New York v. Connecticut, 187 F. Supp. 2d 89 (SDNY 2001); Weinke v. Microsoft Corp, 84 F.

Supp. 2d 989, 990 (E.D. Wis. 2000). In deciding whether to rule on a motion to remand, courts consider

whether the motion raises issues likely to arise in other actions pending before the MDL transferee court. 

Shields v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 232 F. Supp. 2d 715, 718 (E.D. Tex. 2002). 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the parties shall file and serve their briefs of no longer than ten

(10) pages, supported by case law, and directly addressing the issue of whether a stay would be

appropriate in this case. The briefs must be filed no later than June 1, 2005. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT the hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand is continued to

June 28, 2005. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 /s/ Saundra Brown Armstrong 

Dated: 5-11-05 SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG

United States District Judge

Case 4:05-cv-00202-SBA Document 38 Filed 05/11/05 Page 2 of 2