Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-06084/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-06084-2/pdf.json

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

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NADINE CAMARA, an individual, CHRISTINE

DAVIS, an individual, STEPHANIE DOBBS, an

individual, MICHELLE COTTRILL, an individual,

and JENNIFER WILKENS, an individual,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

BAYER CORPORATION, an Indiana corporation,

BAYER HEALTHCARE PHARMACEUTICALS

INC., a Delaware corporation, BAYER

HEALTHCARE LLC, a Delaware limited liability

company, BERLEX LABORATORIES

INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Delaware corporation,

BAYER SCHERING PHARMA AG, a German

Corporation, BAYER AG, a German corporation,

SCHERING AG, a German corporation,

MCKESSON CORPORATION, a Delaware

corporation, and DOES 1-50,

Defendants. /

No. C 09-06084 WHA

ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION

TO STAY PROCEEDINGS

PENDING TRANSFER BY

THE JUDICIAL PANEL

ON MULTIDISTRICT

LITIGATION TO MDL 2100

INTRODUCTION

In this pharmaceutical products-liability case, defendants Bayer Corporation, Bayer

Healthcare LLC, and Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Bayer defendants”), move to stay

this action pending a potential transfer to a multidistrict litigation proceeding. Plaintiffs Nadine

Camara, Christine Davis, Stephanie Dobbs, Michelle Cottrill, and Jennifer Wilkens move to

remand this action to state court for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction due to the absence of

Case 3:09-cv-06084-WHA Document 37 Filed 03/09/10 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

complete diversity. Defendants’ motion to stay pending transfer to MDL is GRANTED.

This order defers ruling on plaintiffs’ motion to remand.

STATEMENT

Bayer defendants are pharmaceutical companies that manufactured the prescription oral

contraceptives commonly known as Yasmin® and YAZ®. This products-liability case is one of a

large number of actions filed against defendants for the alleged personal injury caused by

Yasmin® and YAZ®. On October 1, 2009, an MDL panel transferred 32 actions pending at the

time to MDL No. 2100 in United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois for

coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings before the Honorable David R. Herndon. 

In re: Yasmin, Yaz (Drospirenone) Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation.

655 F. Supp. 2d 1343 (J.P.M.L. 2009). As of January 15, 2010, 180 additional actions have been

transferred to MDL No. 2100 (Schwartz Decl. Exh. C at 1). Additionally, in the opposition to

stay and motion for remand, plaintiffs briefly mention California’s Petition for Coordination

filed with the Judicial Council of California on September 29, 2009. On January 11, 2010, the

Honorable Judge Lichtman granted the Petition for Coordination in the JCCP (Br. 4). 

Plaintiffs filed a state court action for personal injury allegedly caused by Yasmin® and

YAZ® on November 30, 2009, in the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles. 

In the complaint, plaintiffs allege claims of: (1) strict liability for failure to warn; (2) strict

liability for design defect; (3) negligence; (4) breach of implied warranty; (5) breach of express

warranty; (6) violation of California Civil Code Sections 1709 and 1710; (7) negligent

misrepresentation; (8) violation of California Business and Professions Code Section 17200;

(9) violation of California Business and Professions Code Section 17500; and (10) violation of

California Civil Code 1750. 

On December 30, defendants removed this action to federal court, alleging that defendant

McKesson, a citizen of California, was fraudulently joined in an effort to avoid federal

jurisdiction. On January 5, 2010, Bayer defendants filed a letter with the JPML identifying this

case as a tag-along action to MDL No. 2100 (Schwartz Decl. ¶ 3). On January 15, a conditional

Case 3:09-cv-06084-WHA Document 37 Filed 03/09/10 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

transfer order issued for the instant action (Schwartz Decl. ¶ 4). Defendants now move for a stay

of this action, pending a transfer to MDL No. 2100. 

On January 27, plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the action, claiming lack of complete

diversity. Plaintiff’s contend that under 28 U.S.C. 1441(b), this Court lacks subject-matter

jurisdiction because both defendant McKesson and plaintiffs Camara and Wilkins are citizens of

California. Defendants argue that McKesson was fraudulently joined and should be ignored for

purposes of determining diversity jurisdiction. 

ANALYSIS

The power to grant a temporary stay “is incidental to the power inherent in every court to

control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for

counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). Plaintiffs argue that

the Court should rule on the motion to remand before deciding to stay this action despite its being

filed later. Whether a motion to remand or a motion to stay should be decided first, however, is

“extremely sensitive to the facts of the case.” Burse v. Purdue Pharma Co., 2004 WL 1125055

at *1 (N.D. Cal. 2004). In another MDL No. 2100 transfer order, the JPML responded to a

motion to vacate a conditional transfer order due to a pending motion to remand. The order

denied the motion, stating that “Plaintiff in the action before the Panel can present the motion for

remand to state court to the transferee court” (Gabianelli Decl. Exh. D at 1)(citations omitted). 

As of February 18, thirteen motions to stay pending transfer to MDL have been granted in the

Northern and Central Districts of California (Gabianelli Decl. ¶ 2). Of these thirteen, eight

actions have pending motions to remand (ibid.). Plaintiffs argue that “a determination of

Plaintiff’s remand motions will be made and it is imperative that these decisions are made in

California . . .” (Opp. 5). In light of the eight pending motions for remand in California courts,

it is clear that the transferee court will be well-equipped to make an informed and uniform

decision on all of these motions to remand to California state court. 

Plaintiffs argue that the motion to remand should be addressed before a motion to stay is

granted. In view of the MDL, however, doing so would unnecessarily duplicate work and could

lead to inconsistent results. In the motion to remand, plaintiffs argue that defendants cannot show

Case 3:09-cv-06084-WHA Document 37 Filed 03/09/10 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

fraudulent joinder. In doing so, plaintiffs mistakenly cite to “this Court” as deciding a similar

issue in favor of their fraudulent joinder argument. The language from plaintiffs’ memorandum

is as follows: “this Court itself has previously addressed this issue” (Br. 11). In support of this

assertion, plaintiffs cite to a 2005 decision in the Central District of California to say that “this

Court, however, states that Merck does not, and cannot cite any California cases holding that a

distributor cannot be liable for failure to warn . . .” (ibid.). Although the Central District may

have come to the above conclusion, plaintiffs fail to cite a decision where “this Court” actually

addressed the same issue. The reference to “this Court” in the memorandum is incorrect and

misleading.

Plaintiffs also cite to many additional decisions in support of the position that fraudulent

joinder is not present in the instant case. These results will likely be taken into consideration in

deciding similar motions to remand. In order to prevent inconsistent results, however, this should

be done by the MDL panel. 

If the remand motion appeared to be more one-sided in favor of plaintiffs, the undersigned

would be inclined to decide the motion now, as Judge David Carter did in Hoiland v. Bayer

Corporation et al., Case Number 8:09-cv-01350-DOC-RNB. The complaint, however, fails to

clearly explain the role of McKesson in the injury of these specific plaintiffs and leaves a

suspicion that McKesson could have been added to defeat diversity removal. 

CONCLUSION

For all the above-stated reasons, defendants’ motion to stay pending the potential transfer

of this action is GRANTED. In the interim, this order declines to rule on plaintiffs’ motion to

remand. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 9, 2010. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:09-cv-06084-WHA Document 37 Filed 03/09/10 Page 4 of 4