Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02333/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02333-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Product Liability

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRANKIE PARKER,

Plaintiff,

 v.

MERCK CO INC., et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 07-2333 SI

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT

MERCK & COMPANY, INC.’S MOTION

TO STAY PROCEEDINGS PENDING A

DECISION ON TRANSFER BY THE

JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT

LITIGATION

Various motions are scheduled for a hearing on June 29, 2007. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-

1(b), the Court determines that the matters are appropriate for resolution without oral argument, and

VACATES the hearing. For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS defendant Merck’s motion

to stay all proceedings in this case pending a final decision on transfer by the Judicial Panel on

Multidistrict Litigation. In the event Panel does not transfer this action, the Court will rule on plaintiff’s

motion for remand and the medical defendants’ motion to dismiss.

DISCUSSION

This case is one of thousands involving Vioxx® currently pending in federal court. Plaintiff

originally filed this case in the Superior Court for the County of Alameda against defendants Merck &

Co. Inc., J.H. Guadagni, M.D., Visalia Medical Clinic Inc., and Does 1 - 20. The complaint seeks

damages allegedly resulting from plaintiff’s use of Vioxx, a drug manufactured by Merck. On April 30,

2007, Merck removed the action to this Court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. The Notice of

Removal asserts that defendants Guadagni and Visalia Medical Clinic were fraudulently joined. 

On May 21, 2007, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation issued a Conditional Transfer

Case 3:07-cv-02333-SI Document 34 Filed 06/26/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Order conditionally transferring this case to the Vioxx MDL proceeding pending before Judge Fallon

in the Eastern District of Louisiana, In re VIOXX Prods. Liab. Litig., MDL No. 1657. See Thomas Decl.

Ex. A. Plaintiff has filed a notice of opposition to the conditional transfer order, and that matter is

currently being addressed by the Panel. Presently before this Court are defendant Merck’s motion to

stay the action pending its transfer to the MDL proceeding, plaintiff’s motion for remand to state court,

and a motion to dismiss filed by defendants Guadagni and Visalia Medical Clinic. 

The Court’s 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. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). The Court finds that a stay

is in the interest of judicial economy and consistency because there are a number of cases presenting

issues similar to this action already pending before Judge Fallon. Merck asserts, and plaintiff does not

dispute, that many of the cases transferred to the Vioxx MDL proceeding were also removed from

California state court on the basis of fraudulent joinder. See Thomas Reply Decl. ¶¶ 2-3. If the Panel’s

transfer ruling becomes effective, Judge Fallon can address these issues in a uniform manner. Plaintiff’s

one page opposition asserts that a stay is not warranted because this case is “at the beginning stages.”

However, this fact only weighs in favor of a stay if this case is ultimately transferred to the MDL

proceeding.

For the foregoing reasons and good cause shown, the Court GRANTS Merck’s motion to stay

this action (Docket No. 16), and DEFERS ruling on plaintiff’s motion for remand and the medical

defendants’ motion to dismiss. (Docket Nos. 2 and 22).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 26, 2007 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-02333-SI Document 34 Filed 06/26/07 Page 2 of 2