Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00665/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00665-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation
Defendant
William White
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

WILLIAM WHITE,

NO. CIV. S-06-00665 WBS GGH

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER RE: MOTION TO STAY 

NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS

CORPORATION,

Defendant.

----oo0oo----

Plaintiff William White filed this action to recover

damages related to osteonecrosis (bone death) of his maxilla

(upper jaw bone), which he allegedly suffers from due to his use

of the drug Zometa®. (Compl. ¶¶ 1-2.) Defendant Novartis

Pharmaceuticals Corporation, the manufacturer of Zometa® and

similar drugs, now moves the court to stay this case because it

is awaiting transfer, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, to a

multidistrict litigation (“MDL”) proceeding in the Western

District of Tennessee. See In re Aridia & Zometa Prods. Liab.

Case 2:06-cv-00665-WBS-GGH Document 16 Filed 05/22/06 Page 1 of 3
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

Defendant noticed this case as a “tag-along action” on 1

April 21, 2006 and is currently awaiting a conditional transfer

order (“CTO”), which it asserts that neither party intends to

oppose. (Defs.’ Mot. to Stay 3; Ex. 2 (Letter from Defendant’s

Counsel to the Clerk of the Panel).)

“[A]n administrative closure is no different from a 2

simple stay, except that . . . administratively closed cases are

not counted as active . . . .” Dees v. Billy, 394 F.3d 1290,

1294 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting Mire v. Full Spectrum Lending Inc.,

389 F.3d 163, 167 (5th Cir. 2004)).

2

Litig., No. 06-1760 (M.D. Tenn. filed Apr. 19, 2006).1

The power to issue a stay, as the Supreme Court has

noted, “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). Primarily, the

court is concerned with balancing competing interests of the

moving and non-moving parties. Rivers v. Walt Disney Co., 980 F.

Supp. 1358, 1360 (C.D. Cal. 1997). However, in this instance,

plaintiff does not oppose defendant’s motion to stay. (Pl.’s

Stmt. of Non-Opp’n.) Therefore, because the parties appear to be

in agreement that a stay is warranted, or at least acceptable,

the court sees no reason not to exercise its inherent power to

issue one.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that all proceedings in this

matter shall be STAYED and the file ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSED2

///

///

///

///

///

Case 2:06-cv-00665-WBS-GGH Document 16 Filed 05/22/06 Page 2 of 3
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

Alternatively, this case will close if and when the 3

court receives notice from the Panel Chairman that a CTO,

transferring this case to the MDL in the Middle District of

Tennessee, has issued.

3

without prejudice to reopen by motion of either party in the

event that the request for transfer is denied.3

DATED: May 22, 2006

Case 2:06-cv-00665-WBS-GGH Document 16 Filed 05/22/06 Page 3 of 3