Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00617/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00617-4/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AHN DEVERS, 

NO. CIV. S-06-617 LKK/PAN

Plaintiff,

v. O R D E R

MERCK & COMPANY, INC.; and

McKESSON CORPORATION,

Defendants.

 /

On February 28, 2006, plaintiff Ahn Devers (“plaintiff”)

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

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

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

prescription drug Vioxx. On March 23, 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

Case 2:06-cv-00617-LKK -PAN Document 20 Filed 05/18/06 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

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

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

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 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 will

shortly provide notice to the MDL Panel of this action. Merck

expects a conditional transfer order to be issued by the Panel

within the next few weeks. See Def.’s Mot. to Stay at 5. 

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

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

Case 2:06-cv-00617-LKK -PAN Document 20 Filed 05/18/06 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

 The court is aware that it is departing from its August 15, 1

2005 order on the same issue. See Martin v. Merck & Co., No. S-05-

750, slip op. (E.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2005) (Karlton, J.). Subsequent

developments regarding the MDL Vioxx proceedings justify the

court’s change in position. Namely, since the August order was

issued, over 30 cases from California that involve the identical

jurisdictional issues are now before the MDL judge in the Eastern

3

Here, Merck asserts that removal is proper because defendant

McKesson, whose presence defeats diversity jurisdiction, was

fraudulently joined. See Def.’s 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)(Karlton, J.)

(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.1

Case 2:06-cv-00617-LKK -PAN Document 20 Filed 05/18/06 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

District of Louisiana. Moreover, it is apparent that the majority

of the Vioxx cases that are removed are not, in fact, remanded.

Defendant Merck asserts, and plaintiff does not dispute, that the

majority of courts have stayed approximately 300 Vioxx cases with

pending remand motions. See Def.’s Opp’n to Pl.’s Mot. to Remand

at 5:17-18. 

4

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. Good cause appearing, the order to show cause issued on

May 4, 2006 is DISCHARGED; 

4. Oral argument on the motion, currently set for May 30,

2006 at 10 a.m., is VACATED; 

5. The initial scheduling conference set for June 5, 2006

at 1:30 p.m., is VACATED; and

6. 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: May 16, 2006

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

SENIOR JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 2:06-cv-00617-LKK -PAN Document 20 Filed 05/18/06 Page 4 of 4