Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01986/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01986-0/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 - 06-CV-01986

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SRVILLA HARRIS, 

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 06-CV-01986-JM(RBB)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION 

v. TO STAY PROCEEDINGS

MERCK & COMANY, INC., et al.,

Defendant. 

Plaintiff Srvilla Harris moves to remand this action to state court. Defendant

Merck & Company, Inc. (“Merck”) moves to stay this action pending a final transfer

decision by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“JPMDL”). All motions are

opposed. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(d)(1), these motions are appropriate for submission

on the papers and without oral argument. For the reasons set forth below, the court

grants Merck’s motion to stay the proceedings. 

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 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 cases 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.

Case 3:06-cv-01986-JM-RBB Document 13 Filed 12/11/06 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 - 06-CV-01986

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 resolved

Plaintiff’s opposition to the conditional transfer order.

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); Alger v. Merck & Co., No. 06cv1888-IEG(WMc) (S.D. Cal. November 7, 2006).

/ / / 

/ / / 

Case 3:06-cv-01986-JM-RBB Document 13 Filed 12/11/06 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 - 06-CV-01986

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 having to litigate the issue of subject matter jurisdiction before different

courts with 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.

In sum, the court stays the present proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 11, 2006

 Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller United States District Judge

cc: All Parties 

Case 3:06-cv-01986-JM-RBB Document 13 Filed 12/11/06 Page 3 of 3