Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-02296/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-02296-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 367
Nature of Suit: TORTS - Personal Injury - Health Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury/Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332pl Diversity-Product Liability

---

1

19-CV-2296 W (MDD)

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GARY HART,

Plaintiff,

v.

BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM 

PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 19-CV-2296 W (MDD)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION TO STAY [DOC. 3]

Pending before the Court is a motion to stay this case pending a decision by the 

Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML”) on whether to transfer this case and 

other Zantac lawsuits to a multidistrict litigation (“MDL”). Plaintiff opposes.

The Court decides the matters on the papers submitted and without oral argument 

pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1). For the reasons that follow, the Court GRANTS

Defendants’ motion.

Case 3:19-cv-02296-W-MDD Document 15 Filed 02/07/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

19-CV-2296 W (MDD)

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

I. BACKGROUND

This action was filed on December 2, 2019, alleging Plaintiff Gary Hart developed 

colon cancer as a result of taking Zantac—an antacid medication—for approximately 

eight years. (Compl. [Doc. 1] ¶ 5.) Plaintiff asserts claims against Defendants for strict 

liability design defect, strict liability failure to warn, negligence, and breach of express 

and implied warranties.

On December 17, 2019, Defendants moved for a stay pending a decision by the 

JPML whether to transfer all Zantac-related proceedings to a single jurisdiction for 

consolidated pretrial proceedings. (Defs’ Mot. [Doc. 3].) Oral arguments on the motion 

to transfer were scheduled to be heard by the JPML on January 30, 2020. [Doc. 3-1.]

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Courts balance three factors in determining whether a stay pending transfer to an 

MDL is proper: “(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.” 

San Diego Unified Port Dist. v. Monsanto Co., No. 15-cv-00578-WQH-JLB, 2016 WL 

4496826, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 1, 2016) (citation omitted)

III. DISCUSSION

After considering the parties’ arguments, the Court determines a brief stay in this 

case is appropriate. First, any prejudice Plaintiff will suffer is de minimus given that the 

JPML hearing has already occurred, Plaintiff does not oppose consolidation, and a 

transfer order is expected shortly. Although Plaintiff’s declining health is a concern, 

preliminary actions before this Court are not likely to impact how quickly the MDL court 

ultimately handles this case. 

Case 3:19-cv-02296-W-MDD Document 15 Filed 02/07/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

19-CV-2296 W (MDD)

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

Second, the hardship Defendants will suffer absent a stay is significant. Most 

importantly, Defendants face the burden of defending themselves in numerous fora and 

needlessly re-litigating issues before the ultimate MDL court.

Finally, judicial resources will be saved if a stay is implemented. Because the 

issues in this case will necessarily be before the MDL court should transfer be granted, a 

stay will promote judicial efficiency, avoid duplicative litigation, and avoid the risk of 

inconsistent results. Significantly, courts have now entered stays in more than 25 Zantac 

cases. (Defs’ Mot. at 4–5.)

IV. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to stay this case 

pending a final determination from the JPML. [Doc. 3.] The parties are ORDERED to 

file a joint status report apprising the Court of the JPML’s decision.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 6, 2020

Case 3:19-cv-02296-W-MDD Document 15 Filed 02/07/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3