Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00076/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00076-0/pdf.json

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

---

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

JEFFREY NIELSEN,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

MERCK AND COMPANY,

Defendant. /

No. C07-00076 MJJ

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS

MERCK & CO., INC.’S MOTION TO

STAY AND DISMISSING WITHOUT

PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR REMAND

INTRODUCTION

Before the Court is Merck & Company, Inc.’s (“Merck”) motion to stay (Docket No. 8),

including consideration of Jeffrey Nielsen’s (“Plaintiff”) motion for remand (Docket No. 9), pending

a transfer decision by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML”). 

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On February 16, 2005, the JPML issued a transfer order establishing MDL Proceeding No.

1657, entitled In re VIOXX Products Liability Litigation, direct that 148 actions that were the subject

of motions for coordinated treatment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 be transferred for coordinated

pretrial proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, before the

Honorable Eldon E. Fallon. Since then, the JPML has issued conditional transfer orders transferring

numerous additional actions to that MDL proceeding.

On September 21, 2006, Plaintiff filed a complaint in the Superior Court of the State of

California, County of Los Angeles against Merck as well as two pharmaceutical distributors.

Case 3:07-cv-00076-MJJ Document 17 Filed 03/15/07 Page 1 of 4
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

Plaintiff’s allegations focus on the alleged increased health risks when taking Vioxx, and whether

Defendants knew of these alleged increased risks and failed to disclose them. On January 5, 2007,

Merck removed the action to this Court based on diversity jurisdiction, asserting fraudulent joinder

of the pharmaceutical distributors. On January 12, 2007, Merck provided notice to the JPML of this

matter as a “tag-along” action to MDL Proceeding No. 1657. On February 1, 2007, the JPML issued

a conditional transfer order conditionally transferring this case to the MDL proceeding. Plaintiff

intends to oppose the conditional transfer order before the JPML.. 

On January 29, 2007, Merck filed a motion to stay this action pending resolution of its

transfer to the MDL proceeding. On February 1, 2007, Plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case to

state court.

LEGAL STANDARD 

The pendency of a conditional transfer order before the JPML “does not affect or suspend

orders and pretrial proceeding in the district court in which the action is pending and does not in any

way limit the pretrial jurisdiction of the court.” JPML Rule 1.5. At the same time, a court maintains

its inherent power to stay its proceedings. The decision to grant or deny a temporary stay of

proceedings pending a ruling on the transfer of the matter to the MDL court lies within this Court’s

discretion. Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). When ruling on a motion to

stay, a district court should consider several factors: (1) potential prejudice to the non-moving party

if the action is stayed; (2) hardship and inequity to the moving party if the action is not stayed; (3)

the judicial resources that would be saved by avoiding duplicative litigation if the cases are in fact

consolidated; and (4) the potential for conflicting rulings. Rivers v. Walt Disney Co., 980 F. Supp.

1358, 160 (C.D. Cal. 1997). Often, deference to the MDL court for resolution of a motion to remand

provides the opportunity for the uniformity, consistency, and predictability in litigation that

underlies the MDL system. Conroy v. Fresh Del Monte Produce, Inc., 325 F. Supp. 2d 1049, 1053

(N.D. Cal. 2004). 

ANALYSIS 

Under the circumstances, all the relevant factors point towards staying these proceedings.

First, judicial resources will be conserved by staying this matter and deferring consideration

Case 3:07-cv-00076-MJJ Document 17 Filed 03/15/07 Page 2 of 4
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

3

of the remand motion to the MDL court. Defendant’s basis for removal to this court is that the

pharmaceutical distributor defendants, whose presence in this lawsuit destroys complete diversity,

are fraudulently joined. According to Defendant’s assertions, which Plaintiff does not dispute, there

are presently dozens of cases already in the MDL originating from California more that involve the

same jurisdictional issue – the fraudulent joinder of these same pharmaceutical distributor

defendants. This Court follows the many other district courts in California that have found that the

interest of judicial economy therefore favors staying this action pending its transfer to the MDL

proceeding.

Second, absent a stay, there would be a significant risk of inconsistent rulings given the

number of cases already in the MDL that raise the same jurisdictional question. Judge Fallon has

expressed a preference that transferor courts defer rulings on remand motions that present

overlapping jurisdictional issues, as Plaintiff’s motion does here. (Thomas Decl. Exh. G at 21-22.). 

Moreover, as described by the JPML in correspondence with this Court dated February 20, 2007,

regarding pending remand motions, it may be “especially appropriate” for the transferor court to

“wait until the Panel has decided the transfer issue . . . if the motion raises questions likely to arise in

other actions in the transferee court and, in the interest of uniformity, might best be decided there if

the Panel orders centralization.”

Third, a balancing of the hardships to the parties also favors a stay. Plaintiff does not

establish any specific prejudice that would be caused by deferring resolution of the remand question

until the MDL court can address it alongside similar cases. There will still be a judicial

determination of the “fraudulent joinder” issues if the case is transferred. If it is not, Plaintiff may

renew his remand motion here. In contrast, absent a stay, Merck would suffer prejudice from being

forced to litigate the same jurisdictional issues in multiple forums. 

Plaintiff contends that the Court must first preliminarily consider the merits of the remand

motion before even considering a stay, citing Meyers v. Bayer A.G., 143 F. Supp.2d 1044, 1053

(E.D. Wis. 2001). However, this Court has previously observed that the Meyers approach has not

been explicitly adopted by the Ninth Circuit. Conroy v. Fresh Del Monte Produce, Inc., 325 F.

Supp.2d 1049, 1053 (N.D.Cal. 2004) (J. Armstrong). In any event, a preliminary assessment of the

Case 3:07-cv-00076-MJJ Document 17 Filed 03/15/07 Page 3 of 4
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

4

jurisdictional issue presented in Plaintiff's motion to remand reveals that it is factually and legally

complex and cannot easily be disposed of by this Court. In order to rule on Plaintiff's motion, the

Court would have to delve in the factual inconsistencies between Plaintiffs’ allegations against

Merck and Plaintiff’s allegations against the distributor defendants. The Court would also have to

delve into the legal intricacies of the duty of warn imposed on distributors of prescription drugs

under California law. Though Plaintiff points to the order by Judge Chaney in the Vioxx California

Coordination Proceeding in an effort to provide a shortcut through such complex issues, that trial

court ruling is not binding here and does not eliminate the complexity of the required analysis. The

Court also agrees with Merck that Judge Fallon is best positioned to determine what effect, if any,

Judge Chaney’s order should have on federal jurisdiction in cases raising a fraudulent joinder

question under California law. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court: 

(1) GRANTS Merck’s motion to stay (Docket No. 8) pending the transfer decision by the

JPML. 

(2) STAYS further proceedings in this action pending the transfer decision.

(3) DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s motion to remand (Docket No. 9);

and 

(4) VACATES the March 20, 2007 hearing in this matter.

Plaintiff shall notify the Court of the status of this case after the JPML decides the transfer

issue. If this matter is not transferred, the Court shall lift the stay and Plaintiff may renew his

motion to remand.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 

MARTIN J. JENKINS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:07-cv-00076-MJJ Document 17 Filed 03/15/07 Page 4 of 4