Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-06917/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-06917-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jennifer Bogard
Plaintiff
Robert Bogard
Plaintiff
McKesson Corporation
Defendant
Merck & Co., Inc.,
Defendant

Document Text:

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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JENNIFER BOGARD and ROBERT BOGARD,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

MERCK & CO., INC., a New Jersey

Corporation; McKESSON CORPORATION,

a Delaware Corporation; DOES 1-50,

inclusive,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C-06-6917 SC

ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO

STAY AND DENYING

PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO

REMAND

I. INTRODUCTION

Upon removing this action to federal court, Defendant Merck &

Co., Inc. ("Merck") filed a Notice of Pendency of Other Proceeding

and a Motion to Stay the Proceedings. See Docket Nos. 1, 3, 5. 

Defendant seeks the stay in order to give the Judicial Panel on

Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML") the opportunity to transfer the

case to Multidistrict Litigation No. 1789, In Re: Fosamax Prods.

Liab. Litig. Plaintiffs Jennifer and Robert Bogard opposed

Merck's motion and filed a Motion to Remand. See Docket Nos. 9

and 10. For the reasons stated herein, the Court GRANTS

Defendant's Motion to Stay and DENIES Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand

without prejudice. 

II. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Jennifer Bogard alleges that she ingested and was

Case 3:06-cv-06917-SC Document 26 Filed 02/07/07 Page 1 of 3
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

injured by the prescription drug Fosamax, which is manufactured by

Merck and marketed, distributed, and sold by Defendant McKesson

Corporation ("McKesson"). See Complaint, Docket No. 10. 

Plaintiffs filed suit in the California Superior Court for the

County of San Francisco. See Docket No. 10. Merck removed the

case to federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction, 28

U.S.C. § 1332, alleging that McKesson, a California citizen, was

fraudulently joined. See Docket No. 1.

III. LEGAL STANDARD

"[T]he power to stay proceedings 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. North American Co., 299

U.S. 248, 254 (1936). "A trial court may, with propriety, find it

is efficient for its own docket and the fairest course for the

parties to enter a stay of an action before it, pending resolution

of independent proceedings which bear upon the case." Leyva v.

Certified Grocers of California, Ltd., 593 F.2d 857, 863 (9th Cir.

1979). 

IV. DISCUSSION

Appropriate grounds for transferring a case to multidistrict

litigation include promoting "the just and efficient conduct of

such actions." 28 U.S.C. § 1407(a). The issue of whether

McKesson was fraudulently joined in order to destroy federal

jurisdiction is identical to that posed in other Fosamax cases. 

Case 3:06-cv-06917-SC Document 26 Filed 02/07/07 Page 2 of 3
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

See Tanzer Decl., Docket No. 17 (including an order from Morris v.

Merck & Co., Inc. et al., a case from the Central District of

California addressing the same issue and concluding that a stay

was appropriate). As the Morris court and others have concluded,

consideration of Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand and the issue of

fraudulent joinder outside the JPML would foster "unnecessarily

duplicative litigation, an inefficient use of judicial resources,

and the risk of inconsistent results." Stempien v. Eli Lilly and

Co., 2006 WL 1214836, at *1 (N.D. Cal., May 4, 2006) (discussing

the potentially fraudulent joinder of McKesson in the Zyprexa

litigation). In the interests of judicial economy, the best

results will be obtained by referring the case to Multidistrict

Litigation No. 1789, In Re: Fosamax Prods. Liab. Litig. for

resolution of this issue in coordinated pretrial proceedings. 

V. CONCLUSION

The Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion to Stay. All proceedings

in this case are STAYED until issuance of a final decision by the

JPML regarding transfer or for sixty (60) days, whichever is

earlier. In addition, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs' Motion to

Remand without prejudice to re-file in the event transfer is

unsuccessful. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 6, 2007 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-06917-SC Document 26 Filed 02/07/07 Page 3 of 3