Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01811/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01811-2/pdf.json

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

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CLAUDIA STEMPIEN, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ELI LILLY AND COMPANY and

MCKESSON CORPORATION,

Defendants.

NO. C06-1811 TEH 

ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO

STAY AND VACATING

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO

REMAND

This matter comes before the Court on (1) Defendant Eli Lilly and Company’s motion

to stay proceedings pending a decision on transfer by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict

Litigation (“JPML”) and (2) Plaintiffs’ motion to remand. The Court heard oral argument on

Defendant’s motion on Monday, May 1, 2006. Plaintiffs’ motion has not been fully briefed,

and oral argument on Plaintiffs’ motion is not scheduled until June 12, 2006.

This case was conditionally transferred to Multidistrict Litigation (“MDL”) No. 1596,

In re Zyprexa Products Liability Litigation, on April 14, 2006. Plaintiffs informed the Court

that they intend to oppose the conditional transfer order in this case, and the JPML will

therefore allow briefing on the transfer issue before deciding whether transfer is appropriate. 

This Court retains jurisdiction over this matter until any transfer ruling becomes effective.

After carefully considering the parties’ written and oral arguments on Defendant’s

motion, the Court finds a stay of proceedings to be appropriate in this case. The Court has

the inherent power to control its own docket, including the power to stay proceedings in the

interests of judicial economy. Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55 (1936). While a

conditional transfer order is pending, the JPML routinely counsels that courts may rule on

any pending motions, including motions to remand, or courts may defer ruling on pending

motions until after the JPML has decided the transfer issue. The JPML advises that the

Case 3:06-cv-01811-TEH Document 26 Filed 05/04/06 Page 1 of 4
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

1

The cited letter does not refer specifically to this case but, instead, concerns two other

Zyprexa cases. However, the letter is a form letter that this Court has received in other cases

under consideration by the JPML, including two cases currently before the Court involving

Zyprexa and Seroquel.

2

“latter course may be especially appropriate if the motion raises questions likely to arise in

other actions in the transferee court and, in the interest of uniformity, might best be decided

there if the Panel orders centralization.” See, e.g., JPML Letter (Reply Ex. G).1

In this instance, the Court concludes that judicial economy warrants a stay of

proceedings until after the JPML decides whether transfer is appropriate. The parties agree

that seven cases involving the identical question – whether Plaintiffs fraudulently joined

McKesson Corporation as a defendant to destroy diversity – are pending before courts in this

district, and Plaintiffs do not dispute Defendant’s representation that several other such cases

are pending before other district courts in California. Moreover, given that this Court

continues to receive new Zyprexa cases filed in federal court, the Court has no reason to

expect that new cases will not be filed in California state court and subsequently removed by

Defendants to federal court. Thus, multiple judges will need to decide the jurisdictional issue

presented in this case unless the cases are ultimately transferred to MDL, where a single

judge will be able to resolve the issue in all cases. Even if the Court were to grant Plaintiffs’

motion to relate all Zyprexa cases naming McKesson Corporation pending in this district,

judges in other California districts would nonetheless have to decide the issue, thus resulting

in unnecessarily duplicative litigation, an inefficient use of judicial resources, and the risk of

inconsistent results.

The Court finds that the interests in promoting uniformity and consistency therefore

counsel in favor of a stay in this case. This is not a case where the jurisdictional issue is

unlikely to be raised in other cases that may be transferred to MDL, nor is it a case where it is

clear from a preliminary review of the notice of removal or motion to remand that removal

was improper. See, e.g., Leeson v. Merck & Co., No. CIV. S-05-2240 WBS PAN, 2006 U.S.

Dist. Lexis 3096, at *8-10 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2006) (reviewing district court Vioxx cases

Case 3:06-cv-01811-TEH Document 26 Filed 05/04/06 Page 2 of 4
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

Plaintiffs acknowledged at oral argument that the case would likely be transferred to

the MDL court if their remand motion was denied.

3

involving allegations against McKesson and concluding that defendant’s “fraudulent joinder

arguments are not clearly baseless”).

Plaintiffs have also failed to persuade the Court that the potential for delay if this

Court issues a stay outweighs the considerations of judicial economy discussed above or the

potential hardship to Defendants that would result from failing to stay the case. First, the

Honorable Jack Weinstein, the judge presiding over the MDL litigation, has recently issued

an order emphasizing expedition of discovery and the ultimate resolution of the Zyprexa

litigation, thus undermining Plaintiffs’ argument that this case would be significantly delayed

if it had to wait for the MDL court to resolve the jurisdictional issue. In re: Zyprexa Prods.

Liab. Litig., MDL-1596 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 10, 2006) (Reply Ex. J). Second, Defendants face

considerable hardship if this Court were to decide the remand motion, regardless of whether

the Court granted or denied that motion. As one court recently observed in a Vioxx case, if

this Court were to deny the motion to remand, the MDL court may nonetheless revisit the

issue upon transfer, thus forcing Defendants to relitigate the issue.2

 Leeson, 2006 U.S. Dist.

Lexis 3096, at *15-16. If, on the other hand, this Court were to grant the motion to remand

and the MDL court ultimately decided that removal was proper, Defendants would be

prejudiced by being forced to litigate this case in state court because remand orders are not

appealable. Id. at *16.

The Court acknowledges that at least one judge in the Central District of California

has sua sponte remanded a Zyprexa case involving McKesson. See Sconiers v. Eli Lilly &

Co., No. CV 06-1466 PA (PJWx), slip op. (Ex. I to Pls.’ Mot. to Remand). However, the

Court is not without precedent in exercising its discretion to stay proceedings in this case. In

the Vioxx cases, for example, most California district courts, with the exception of those in

the Central District of California, either stayed cases pending transfer and allowed the MDL

court to resolve the motions to remand or avoided the issue because the cases were

transferred to MDL before motions to remand were filed. Leeson, 2006 U.S. Dist. Lexis

Case 3:06-cv-01811-TEH Document 26 Filed 05/04/06 Page 3 of 4
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

4

3096, at *11-12. More recently, Judge William Alsup in this district has routinely stayed all

Zyprexa cases as they are filed and, just last week, denied plaintiffs’ request for leave to file

a motion to remand in a case involving McKesson. Johnson v. Eli Lilly & Co., No.

C06-2188 WHA, docket no. 18 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 26, 2006) (Ex. A to Supplemental Decl. of

James M. Neudecker). This Court finds the approach followed by Judge Alsup and the

majority of California district courts to be more prudent than the Central District’s

consideration of the jurisdictional issues pending transfer.

Accordingly, and in light of all of the above, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion

to stay and VACATES Plaintiffs’ motion to remand without prejudice. If the JPML does not

transfer this case to the MDL court, then Plaintiffs may renew their motion to remand before

this Court at that time.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 05/04/06 

THELTON E. HENDERSON, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 3:06-cv-01811-TEH Document 26 Filed 05/04/06 Page 4 of 4