Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00082/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00082-1/pdf.json

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

DEBORAH SISEMORE,

NO. CIV. S-06-0082 WBS GGH

Plaintiff,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: 

MOTION TO REMAND AND MOTION TO

 STAY

MERCK & COMPANY, INC., PFIZER

INC., MCKESSON CORPORATION,

and DOES 1 through 100

inclusive

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

Plaintiff Deborah Sisemore brought this action in the

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

related to her heart attacks allegedly caused by the drugs Vioxx

and Bextra. This action was removed to this court on January 12,

2006. Plaintiff now seeks a remand to state court and attorneys’

fees incurred in connection with that motion. Defendant Merck

opposes the 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. Likewise, defendant Pfizer opposes

the motion to remand and moves the court to stay this case

Case 2:06-cv-00082-WBS-GGH Document 36 Filed 04/06/06 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

pending transfer to the Northern District of California. 

Defendant Merck is a pharmaceutical company

incorporated and having its principal place of business in New

Jersey. 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.

Defendant Pfizer is also a pharmaceutical company,

incorporated in Delaware and having its principal place of

business in New York. Pfizer manufactures Bextra, another NSAID

that competes with Vioxx and allegedly presents similar risks to

cardiovascular health. Like Merck, Pfizer has voluntarily

withdrawn Bextra from the market.

Multidistrict litigation (“MDL”) against Merck, arising

from consumption of Vioxx, is currently pending. 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

Nos. 1657 and 1699, CTO-44 and CTO-18 (Mar. 23, 2006). At last

count, 3,256 additional Vioxx cases had been transferred there. 

Id. On September 6, 2005, the JPML similarly consolidated cases

against Pfizer involving Bextra and Celebrex and transferred them

to the Northern District of California. Id. Five hundred and

four additional cases have since been added to that proceeding. 

Id. In cases such as the instant action, where the plaintiff

brings claims against both companies, the JPML has elected to

Case 2:06-cv-00082-WBS-GGH Document 36 Filed 04/06/06 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”) 39 marked this case 1

as potentially transferrable to the MDL proceedings. MDL Panel

Docket No. 05-1657 (E.D. La. Dec. 6, 2005) (CTO-39) (docketed

Feb. 22, 2006). Plaintiff opposed transfer on February 17, 2006. 

Id. Consequently, actual transfer of this action has been

delayed and may yet be defeated. However, according to Merck,

“to date, the Panel has rejected each and every motion to vacate

a conditional transfer order that it has taken under

consideration.” (Def.’s Mot. to Stay 5 n.1.) 

3

sever the claims and, with the permission of the particular

district court, assign them to their respective MDL proceeding. 

Id. 

Plaintiff’s suit is, however, further complicated by

plaintiff’s inclusion of a third defendant. In addition to Merck

and Pfizer, the manufacturer defendants, plaintiff has joined the

McKesson Corporation, a California corporation allegedly serving

as the state’s primary distributor of pharmaceuticals. (Pl.’s

Opp’n to Def.’s Mot. to Stay Ex. 2 (Wolden Decl. at 39).) 

Plaintiff, also a citizen of California, contends that McKesson’s

involvement in this suit rendered Merck’s removal of this action

improper. 

In response, defendants move to stay this action in

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

matter. Merck and Pfizer argue that after the transfer is 1

complete, 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.

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,

Case 2:06-cv-00082-WBS-GGH Document 36 Filed 04/06/06 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

See also Welch v. Merck & Co., Inc., No. S-05-2267, 2

slip op. at 4 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 3, 2006) (documenting “a recent

trend in this court to stay the Vioxx products liability cases

against Merck” pending transfer to the MDL court). 

4

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

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 defendants Merck and Pfizer will

proceed in federal or state court. Plaintiff has not attempted

to distinguish this court’s order in Leeson. Consequently, for

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

case.2

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:

(1) defendants’ 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

Case 2:06-cv-00082-WBS-GGH Document 36 Filed 04/06/06 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

be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.3

DATED: April 5, 2006

Case 2:06-cv-00082-WBS-GGH Document 36 Filed 04/06/06 Page 5 of 5