Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02267/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02267-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 245
Nature of Suit: Real Property 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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

CLAYTON WELCH,

CASE NO. CIV. S-05-2267 WBS DAD

Plaintiff,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: 

MOTION TO REMAND AND MOTION TO

STAY 

MERCK & COMPANY, INC.,

MCKESSON CORPORATION, and DOES

1 through 100 inclusive

Defendant.

----oo0oo----

Plaintiff Clayton Welch brought this action in the

Superior Court in and for the County of Los Angeles for damages

related to a heart attack allegedly caused by the drug Vioxx. 

The action was removed to this court on November 7, 2005. 

Plaintiff now seeks a remand to state court and attorneys’ fees

incurred in connection with that motion. Defendant Merck opposes

plaintiff’s motion to remand and moves the court to stay this

case pending transfer to the Eastern District of Louisiana

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407.

///

Case 2:05-cv-02267-WBS-DAD Document 35 Filed 02/06/06 Page 1 of 5
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

I. Factual and Procedural Background

Defendant Merck is a pharmaceutical company

incorporated and having its principal place of business in New

Jersey. Defendant McKesson Corporation is a California

corporation that allegedly serves as the state’s primary

distributor of pharmaceuticals, including Merck’s products. 

Prior to September, 2004, Merck manufactured and marketed Vioxx,

a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (“NSAID”) used to treat

arthritis and acute pain. However, on September 30, 2004, Merck

voluntarily withdrew Vioxx from the market in light of evidence

that patients taking the drug experienced cardiovascular

complications.

Multidistrict litigation (“MDL”) against Merck, arising

from consumption of Vioxx, is currently pending in the federal

courts. On February 16, 2005, the Judicial Panel on

Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML”) consolidated 138 federal cases

involving Vioxx and transferred them to the Eastern District of

Louisiana. See MDL Panel Docket No. 05-1657 (E.D. La. Jan. 24,

2006) (CTO-36). At last count, 2,836 additional Vioxx cases had

been transferred there. Id. 

Meanwhile, an equally large consolidated action,

Judicial Counsel Coordination Proceeding (“JCCP”) 4247, is

progressing against Merck in Los Angeles Superior Court. The

instant action was originally a part of that state court

proceeding, before it was removed to this court, and plaintiff

would like to continue to litigate this matter there. 

Significantly, plaintiff (who, like McKesson, is a citizen of

California) contends that Merck’s removal of this action based on

Case 2:05-cv-02267-WBS-DAD Document 35 Filed 02/06/06 Page 2 of 5
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

Conditional Transfer Order (“CTO”) 34 marked this case 1

as potentially transferrable to the MDL proceedings. MDL Panel

Docket No. 05-1657 (E.D. La. Dec. 6, 2005) (CTO-34) (docketed

Dec. 23, 2005). Plaintiff opposed transfer on December 20, 2005. 

Id. Consequently, actual transfer of this action has been

delayed, although a decision from the MDL court is expected

shortly. See Letter from Wm. Terrell Hodges, Chairman, U.S. JPML

to Judges of the Eastern District of California (Dec. 20, 2005)

(noting that, while the court may consider pending motions to

remand in the instant case, waiting to rule “may be especially

appropriate if the motion raises questions likely to arise in

other actions in the transferee court . . . .”).

3

diversity jurisdiction was improper. Accordingly, plaintiff asks

this court to remand this case. 

In response, defendant Merck moves to stay this action

in light of an expected decision by the MDL court to transfer

this matter. Merck argues that after the transfer is complete, 1

the MDL court will be in the best position to provide a uniform

answer to the question presented here: whether McKesson was

fraudulently joined for the purpose of defeating diversity

jurisdiction.

II. Discussion

The 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). Moreover, a stay, and deference to the MDL

transferee court, is particularly appropriate when the parties

contest issues that are “likely to arise in other actions

pending” in the consolidated proceedings. Conroy v. Fresh Del

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

On January 25, 2006, this court issued a stay in Leeson

v. Merck & Co., No. 05-2240. That case, which also involved a

Case 2:05-cv-02267-WBS-DAD Document 35 Filed 02/06/06 Page 3 of 5
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

The exception to this practice has been the Central 2

District of California, where the court has routinely remanded

cases involving Vioxx and McKesson. See, e.g., Aaroe v. Merck &

Co., No. 05-5559, slip op. at 2 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 1, 2005); Aaron

v. Merck & Co., No. 05-4073, slip op. at 2 (C.D. Cal. July 26,

2005).

4

plaintiff’s motion to remand and defendants’ motion to stay, is

in many respects identical to the instant matter. Significantly,

the parties in Leeson also disputed whether defendant McKesson

had been fraudulently joined, an issue which will determine

whether plaintiff’s case against defendant Merck will proceed in

the Los Angeles Coordinated Proceeding for Vioxx products

liability cases or in the federal MDL in Louisiana. For the

reasons stated in that order, the court will also stay this case.

In so holding, the undersigned continues a recent trend

in this court to stay the Vioxx products liability cases against

Merck. Lame Bull v. Merck & Co., No. S-05-2465, slip op. (E.D.

Cal. Jan. 23, 2006); see also Parker ex rel. Dunn v. Merck & Co.,

No. S-05-2446, slip op. (E.D. Cal. Jan. 24, 2006) (continuing the

hearing on the parties’ motions to remand and stay until May 8,

2006); Crook v. Merck & Co., No. S-05-2436, minute order (E.D.

Cal. Jan. 19, 2006) (finding the parties’ motions to remand and

stay moot in light of a CTO; vacating a hearing on the motion). 

The approach emerging in the Eastern District of California is

also consistent with decisions in the Northern and Southern

Districts. Johnson v. Merck & Co., No. 05-02881, slip op. at 2 2

(N.D. Cal. Oct. 3, 2005) (granting defendant’s motion to stay);

see also In re Vioxx Prod. Liability Cases, No. 05-0943, slip op.

at 5 (S.D. Cal. July 11, 2005) (staying 18 consolidated cases and

denying without prejudice plaintiff’s motion to remand; these

Case 2:05-cv-02267-WBS-DAD Document 35 Filed 02/06/06 Page 4 of 5
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

An order directing “payment of just costs and any 3

actual expenses, including attorney fees, incurred as a result of

the removal” is only warranted when the motion to remand is

granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

5

cases were transferred to the MDL court in late 2005). In the

interest of judicial economy and to further the consistency that

MDL proceedings aim to provide, staying the instant action is

appropriate.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:

(1) defendant’s motion to stay be, and the same hereby

is, GRANTED;

(2) plaintiff’s motion to remand be, and the same 

hereby is, DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; and

(3) plaintiff’s motion for attorneys’ fees and costs

be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.3

DATED: February 3, 2006

Case 2:05-cv-02267-WBS-DAD Document 35 Filed 02/06/06 Page 5 of 5