Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02038/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02038-0/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 06cv2038 BTM(LSP)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID J HERNANDEZ,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 06cv2038 BTM(LSP)

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT

PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

TO REMAND AND GRANTING

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR STAY

OF PROCEEDINGS

vs.

MERCK & CO, INC., ET AL.

Defendants.

Plaintiff has filed a motion to remand this action to the Superior Court of California,

County of Los Angeles. Defendant Merck & Co, Inc. (“Merck”) has filed a cross-motion to

stay this action pending a decision of transfer by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

(“JPMDL”). For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiff’s motion to remand is DENIED

WITHOUT PREJUDICE and Defendant’s motion to stay this action pending transfer

proceedings before the JPMDL is GRANTED.

This action is the subject of a Conditional Transfer Order, conditionally transferring this

and other Vioxx cases to the United Stated District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana

(“MDL court”) for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. Plaintiff has filed a notice

of opposition with the JPMDL. To date, there has been no ruling on the transfer.

Plaintiff seeks to remand this action on the ground that the Court lacks diversity

jurisdiction. Plaintiff contends that contrary to Merck’s claims in its Notice of Removal,

Case 3:06-cv-02038-BTM-LSP Document 14 Filed 12/13/06 Page 1 of 2
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 06cv2038 BTM(LSP)

defendant McKesson Corporation, a California corporation, was properly joined and is not

a “sham” defendant. Merck seeks to stay all proceedings in this Court pending a transfer

decision by the JPMDL.

In determining whether to issue a stay of proceedings pending transfer proceedings

before the JPMDL, courts 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).

 The Court finds that a stay of this case pending a transfer decision by the JPMDL

would promote judicial economy and avoid the possibility of conflicting rulings. In addition,

a stay would conserve the parties’ resources. Although a stay may result in some delay in

the resolution of this case, Plaintiff would not suffer significant prejudice. 

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Merck’s motion to stay these proceedings pending

a transfer decision by the JPMDL and DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to remand WITHOUT

PREJUDICE to renewing the motion either before this Court if the case is not transferred or

before the MDL court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 12, 2006

Hon. Barry Ted Moskowitz

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-02038-BTM-LSP Document 14 Filed 12/13/06 Page 2 of 2