Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00075/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00075-1/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ESTATE OF MAURINE ROBINSON,

by and through a Successor 

in Interest, DAVID TENN,

an individual,

NO. CIV. S-07-75 LKK/GGH

Plaintiff,

v.

O R D E R

MERCK & COMPANY, INC., et al,

Defendants.

 /

On September 26, 2006, Plaintiff, Estate Of Maurine Robinson,

by and through a Successor in Interest, David Tenn (“plaintiff”)

commenced this action against Merck & Co., Inc. (“Merck”) by filing

a Complaint in the Superior Court for the State of California,

County of Los Angeles. On January 11, 2007, Merck removed this

action to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction. 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

Case 2:07-cv-00075-LKK -GGH Document 15 Filed 03/14/07 Page 1 of 3
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

with the large volume of Vioxx-related cases in federal court.

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. 

On January 16, 2007, Merck provided notice to the MDL Panel

of the pendency of this “tag-along” action and furnished the

Panel with a copy of the docket sheet and complaint in this

action. Merck asserts, and plaintiff does not dispute, that it

will shortly provide notice to the MDL panel of this action. 

Merck expects a conditional transfer order to be issued by the

panel within the next few weeks. 

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

Case 2:07-cv-00075-LKK -GGH Document 15 Filed 03/14/07 Page 2 of 3
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

3

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

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

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 March

26, 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: March 14, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-00075-LKK -GGH Document 15 Filed 03/14/07 Page 3 of 3