Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01973/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01973-1/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

LINDA CHAMBERLAIN, 

NO. CIV. S-06-1973 LKK/GGH

Plaintiff,

v.

O R D E R

MERCK & CO., INC., et al,

Defendants.

 /

On July 19, 2006, plaintiff Linda Chamberlain (“plaintiff”)

filed an action in the Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles

against defendants Merck & Co., Inc. (“Merck”) and McKesson

Corporation (“McKesson”) alleging injuries from her use of the

prescription drug Vioxx. On September 1, 2006, Merck removed the

action to this 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 (“MDL”) proceeding that has been established to deal

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

Case 2:06-cv-01973-LKK -GGH Document 21 Filed 11/06/06 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 Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

(“JPML”) consolidated 148 federal cases involving Vioxx and

transferred them to the Eastern District of Louisiana. 

In Re Vioxx Products Liability Litigation, 360 F.Supp.2d 1352

(J.P.M.L 2005). The MDL panel also held that around 300 related

actions in multiple federal districts “will be treated as potential

tag-along cases.” Id. at 1352 n. 1. 

Merck asserts, and plaintiff does not dispute, that it

provided notice to the MDL panel of this action on September 5,

2006. Merck expects a conditional transfer order to be issued by

the Panel within the next few weeks. See Def.’s Mot. to Stay at

4. Since the first transfer order was issued on February 16, 2005,

more than 2,500 cases have been transferred to or filed directly

to the MDL Vioxx proceedings. Id. at 4.

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

Case 2:06-cv-01973-LKK -GGH Document 21 Filed 11/06/06 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

3

1049, 1053 (N.D. Cal. 2004). 

Here, Merck asserts that removal is proper because defendant

McKesson, whose presence defeats diversity jurisdiction, was

fraudulently joined. See Def. Notice of Removal at 7. The question

of whether McKesson was fraudulently joined 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 (J. Karlton)(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); Love v. Merck & Co., No. 05-2140

(E.D. Cal. filed Oct. 24, 2005) (McKesson named as a defendant but

case transferred before motion to remand was filed); Lagden v.

Merck & Co., No. 05-0656 (E.D. Cal. filed Apr. 4, 2005) (same).

Given the number of cases that present this exact

jurisdictional question and given the growing number of Vioxx cases

being transferred to the MDL proceeding in the Eastern District of

Louisiana, this court follows the many other district courts in

California in finding 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 motion, currently set for November

13, 2006, is VACATED;

4. The status conference also set for November 13, 2006 at

Case 2:06-cv-01973-LKK -GGH Document 21 Filed 11/06/06 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

3:30 p.m is VACATED; and 

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

action shall be STAYED, pending transfer of the action to MDL

Proceeding No. 1657 in the Eastern District of Louisiana. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 3, 2006.

Case 2:06-cv-01973-LKK -GGH Document 21 Filed 11/06/06 Page 4 of 4