Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-04282/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-04282-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 367
Nature of Suit: TORTS - Personal Injury - Health Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury/Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Product Liability

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DON BURIES,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOHNSON & JOHNSON, et al.,

Defendants.

LATONYA BOHANNON,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOHNSON & JOHNSON, et al.,

 

 Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-04282-HSG 

ORDER STAYING CASE

Re: Dkt. No. 43

Case No. 15-cv-04295-HSG 

Re: Dkt. No. 40

Defendant McKesson Corporation filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings on 

October 9, 2015. Dkt. No. 21.1 On October 19, 2015, Plaintiff Don Buries filed a motion to 

remand. Dkt. No. 24. On October 21, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion to stay briefing on Defendant 

McKesson’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. Dkt. No. 29. A hearing on all three motions 

is currently scheduled for December 3, 2015.

On November 18, 2015, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“MDL 

Panel”) filed a conditional transfer order encompassing the above-captioned cases. MDL No. 

2642, Dkt. No. 157. On November 23, 2015, the plaintiffs in the above-captioned cases filed a 

 

1 All docket citations herein refer to the docket in Buries v. Johnson & Johnson et al., No. 15-cv4282-HSG. The relevant procedural history in the Buries case is identical to the procedural 

history in Bohannon v. Johnson & Johnson et al., No. 15-cv-04295-HSG, unless otherwise noted.

Case 4:15-cv-04282-HSG Document 46 Filed 12/02/15 Page 1 of 2
2

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

Northern District of California

notice of opposition to the conditional transfer order. Id., Dkt. No. 160. The MDL Panel has set a 

briefing schedule for the plaintiffs’ motion to vacate the conditional transfer order. Id., Dkt. No. 

162.

“[T]he 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). In order to issue a 

stay, courts consider: (1) “the possible damage which may result from the granting of a stay,” (2) 

“the hardship or inequity which a party may suffer in being required to go forward,” and (3) “the 

orderly course of justice measured in terms of the simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and 

questions of law which could be expected to result from a stay.” CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 

265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962) (citing Landis, 299 U.S. at 254–55). Whether to stay an action is a matter 

entrusted to the discretion of the district court. See Landis, 299 U.S. at 254 (“How this can best be 

done calls for the exercise of judgment, which must weigh competing interests and maintain an 

even balance.”). 

The Court finds in its discretion that both the parties’ and judicial resources will be most 

efficiently used if these cases are stayed until the MDL Panel decides whether to vacate the 

conditional transfer order. Deference to the MDL Panel allows for the uniformity, consistency, 

and predictability in litigation that underlies the MDL system. See 28 U.S.C. § 1407. Moreover, 

the stay will be of limited duration. Therefore, it is unlikely that any damage will result from the 

granting of the stay. Accordingly, the above-captioned cases are STAYED until the MDL Panel’s 

resolution of the plaintiffs’ motions to vacate the conditional transfer order. The parties’ 

stipulations to continue the motions hearing, Case No. 15-cv-4282-HSG, Dkt. No. 43 and Case

No. 15-cv-04295-HSG, Dkt. No. 40, are DENIED AS MOOT.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 2, 2015

________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 4:15-cv-04282-HSG Document 46 Filed 12/02/15 Page 2 of 2