Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02833/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02833-0/pdf.json

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

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALLAN J. ENGLISH, individually

and as successor in interest

to THERESA MARY ENGLISH,

deceased,

Plaintiff,

NO. CIV. S-06-2833 LKK/DAD

v.

MERCK & CO., INC., et al,

O R D E R

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff Allan English commenced this action against Merck

& Co., Inc. (“Merck”) on September 25, 2006 in California Superior

Court for alleged injuries caused by the prescription drug Vioxx.

Merck removed this action to federal court on diversity

jurisdiction on December 13, 2006. Plaintiff now moves to remand,

asserting that removal was improper and that this court lacks

jurisdiction. Merck moves to stay the action pending its transfer

to the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML”)

proceeding that has been established to deal with the large volume

of Vioxx-related cases in federal court.

Case 2:06-cv-02833-LKK -DAD Document 16 Filed 02/12/07 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

2

I. Background

This case is one of hundreds of cases regarding Vioxx. On

February 16, 2005, the MDL panel consolidated and transferred

148 federal cases involving Vioxx to the Eastern District of

Louisiana. In re Vioxx Prods. Liab. Litig., 360 F. Supp. 2d

1352 (J.P.M.L. 2005). The MDL panel held that the “nearly 300

potentially related actions in multiple federal districts . . .

will be treated as potential tag-along cases.” Id. at 1352 n.1. 

Merck provided notice to the JPML of this action on

December 15, 2006 and expects this case to be listed on a

conditional transfer order shortly.

II. Analysis

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). In

cases involving similar jurisdictional questions, deference to

the MDL proceeding is often appropriate when “the motion raises

issues likely to arise in other actions pending in [the

consolidated action].” Conroy v. Fresh Del Monte Produce Inc.,

325 F. Supp. 2d 1049, 1053 (N.D. Cal. 2004).

Here, Merck asserts that removal is proper because

defendants McKesson and Amerisource, whose presence defeats

diversity jurisdiction, were fraudulently joined. The question

of fraudulent joinder is not unique to the pending case. See,

e.g., Lame Bull v. Merck & Co., et. al, No. 05-2465, slip op.

(E.D. Cal. January 24, 2006) (Karlton, J.) (staying case to

Case 2:06-cv-02833-LKK -DAD Document 16 Filed 02/12/07 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

 The court is aware that it is departing from its August 15, 1

2005 order on the same issue. See Martin v. Merck & Co., No. S-05-

750, slip op. (E.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2005) (Karlton, J.). Subsequent

developments regarding the MDL Vioxx proceedings justify the

court’s change in position. Namely, since the August order was

issued, over 55 cases from California that involve the identical

jurisdictional issues are now before the MDL judge in the Eastern

District of Louisiana. See Def. Merck’s Opp’n to Pl.’s Mot. for

Remand at 3.

3

allow remand to be decided by MDL judge); Purcell v. Merck &

Co., et. al, No. 05-0443, slip op. (S.D. Cal. June 6, 2005)

(same); Johnson v. Merck & Co., No. C-05-02881, slip op. at *2

(N.D. Cal. Oct. 3, 2005) (same).

Given the number of cases that present this exact

jurisdictional question and the growing number of cases being

transferred to the MDL proceedings, this court, like several

other district courts, finds that the interest of judicial

economy favors staying this action pending its transfer to the

MDL proceeding. For these reasons, the court hereby ORDERS 1

that:

1. Defendant Merck’s motion to stay is GRANTED;

2. Plaintiff’s motion to remand is DENIED;

3. Oral argument on the motions currently set for

February 20, 2007 at 10:00 a.m. is VACATED; 

4. Upon entry of this order, further proceedings in this 

action shall be STAYED, pending transfer of the action

to the MDL proceeding. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: February 9, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-02833-LKK -DAD Document 16 Filed 02/12/07 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

4

Case 2:06-cv-02833-LKK -DAD Document 16 Filed 02/12/07 Page 4 of 4