Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01982/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01982-0/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

27

28

- 1 - 06cv1982

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOEL CHRISTENSON,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 06cv1982-IEG(RBB)

Order Vacating November 13, 2006

Hearing; Granting Defendant’s Motion

for Stay of Proceedings [Doc. No. 7];

Denying Without Prejudice Plaintiff’s

Motion to Remand [Doc. No. 6]

vs.

MERCK & CO., INC., a New Jersey

Corporation, et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff Joel Christenson moves the Court for an order remanding this action to state court. 

Defendant Merck & Co., Inc. (“Merck”) moves the Court, instead, for an order staying this action 

pending a transfer decision by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“JPMDL”). Both

parties have filed opposition and reply briefs. These motions are appropriate for submission on the

papers and without oral argument pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(d)(1) and the November 13, 2006

hearing is VACATED. For the reasons set forth herein, Defendant’s motion to stay the

proceedings is GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s motion for remand is DENIED without prejudice to

being renewed either before this Court if the case is not transferred to the MDL or before the

MDL.

Background

This case is one of approximately 143 Vioxx products liability cases which Merck removed

to this Court from the Los Angeles County Superior Court between September 15, 2006 and the

Case 3:06-cv-01982-IEG-RBB Document 13 Filed 11/07/06 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

27

28

- 2 - 06cv1982

present time. Merck removed these cases alleging diversity jurisdiction. Immediately following

removal, Merck notified the JPMDL of this potential tag-along action and sought to have the case

transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana (the “MDL

court”), which is handling the Multidistrict Litigation case In re Vioxx Products Litigation, MDL

No. 1657. On October 17, 2006, the JPMDL issued a Conditional Transfer Order conditionally

transferring this and most of the other Vioxx cases to the Eastern District of Louisiana for

inclusion in the In re Vioxx Products Litigation. Plaintiff has notified the JPMDL of its opposition

to such a transfer. The JPMDL has not yet set a hearing on the transfer request.

Plaintiff opposes the transfer of this case to the MDL court in Louisiana. Plaintiff argues

the federal Courts lack subject matter jurisdiction because one of the Defendants named in the

complaint, McKesson Corporation, is a citizen of California. As a result, Plaintiff seeks immediate

remand to the state court prior to any transfer to the MDL court in Louisiana.

Discussion

 In considering whether to stay an action pending MDL transfer, the Court should consider

three factors: (1) potential prejudice to the non-moving party; (2) hardship and inequity to the

moving party if the action is not stayed; and (3) the judicial resources that would be saved by

avoiding duplicative litigation if the cases are in fact consolidated. Rivers v. Walt Disney Co., 980

F. Supp. 1358, 1360 (C.D. Cal. 1997). In opposition to Merck’s motion to stay, Plaintiff points to

an isolated few courts which have remanded Vioxx cases rather than stay proceedings to permit

the JPMDL to determine whether transfer is appropriate. However, the overwhelming majority of

courts, including several judges of this court, have determined that a stay is appropriate pending

transfer to the MDL. See In re Vioxx Product Liability Cases, Lead Case No. 05cv943-DMS(LSP)

(S.D. Cal. July 11, 2005) (staying 18 consolidated cases pending transfer to the MDL); McCrerey

v. Merck & Co., No. 04cv2576-WQH(WMc) (S.D. Cal. March 5, 2005); Purcell v. Merck & Co.,

No. 05cv443-L(BLM) (S.D. Cal. June 6, 2005); Valentine v. Merck & Co., No. 06cv2154-

DMS(JMA) (S.D. Cal. October 23, 2006).

The Court is concerned that imposing a stay in this case will delay the resolution of

Plaintiff’s motion to remand. If the case is not stayed, however, both parties face the prospect of

Case 3:06-cv-01982-IEG-RBB Document 13 Filed 11/07/06 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

27

28

- 3 - 06cv1982

having to litigate the issue of subject matter jurisdiction before different courts and the possibility

of inconsistent rulings. Furthermore, it is particularly appropriate to delay ruling on the Plaintiff’s

motion to remand because the cases which this Court previously transferred to the MDL court

present identical jurisdictional issues regarding McKesson’s status as a proper Defendant. A stay

of this case will promote consistency and judicial economy.

Conclusion

For the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS Defendant Merck & Co., Inc.’s motion

to stay [Doc. No. 7] and DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s motion to remand [Doc. No.

6].

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 7, 2006

IRMA E. GONZALEZ, Chief Judge

United States District Court

Case 3:06-cv-01982-IEG-RBB Document 13 Filed 11/07/06 Page 3 of 3