Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-03838/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-03838-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Dolores Gould
Plaintiff
Johnson & Johnson
Defendant
Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc.
Defendant

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

STIPULATED REQUEST FOR STAY PENDING MDL TRANSFER DECISION

CASE NO. 3:16-CV-04619-MMC

Ben F. Pierce Gore (CA SBN 128515)

pgore@prattattorneys.com

PRATT & ASSOCIATES

1871 The Alameda, Suite 425

San Jose, California 95126

Telephone: (408) 429-6506

Facsimile: (408) 369-0752

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

G. Gregg Webb (CA SBN 298787)

gwebb@shb.com

SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P.

One Montgomery, Suite 2700

San Francisco, California 94104-4505

Telephone: (415) 544-1900

Facsimile: (415) 391-0281 

Attorneys for Defendants

JOHNSON & JOHNSON and JOHNSON & 

JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. 

formerly known as JOHNSON & JOHNSON 

CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DOLORES GOULD,

Plaintiff,

vs.

JOHNSON & JOHNSON and JOHNSON & 

JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC.,

Defendants.

Case No. 4:16-cv-03838-HSG

STIPULATED REQUEST FOR STAY 

PENDING MDL TRANSFER DECISION; 

DECLARATION OF G. GREGG WEBB;

AND ORDER 

Pursuant to Civil L.R. 6-2, Plaintiff Dolores Gould and Defendants Johnson & Johnson and 

Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc., formerly known as Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, 

Inc., (together, the “Johnson & Johnson Defendants,” and collectively with Plaintiff, “the Parties”) 

hereby stipulate and request that the Court enter the accompanying Proposed Order staying this 

action for all purposes pending a decision by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML”) 

on the previously filed Motion for Transfer seeking to centralize this case and all other federal 

talcum powder cases filed nationally into a Multidistrict Litigation (“MDL”) proceeding (the “MDL 

Case 4:16-cv-03838-HSG Document 15 Filed 09/21/16 Page 1 of 9
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

STIPULATED REQUEST FOR STAY PENDING MDL TRANSFER DECISION

 CASE NO. 4:16-CV-03838-HSG

Motion”). As described below, the Johnson & Johnson Defendants did not oppose creation of an 

MDL. The JPML has set the MDL Motion for hearing on September 29, 2016, and the Parties 

anticipate that the JPML will issue its ruling shortly thereafter. Granting a brief stay of this action 

will ensure that the JPML has an opportunity to hear and rule upon the pending Motion for Transfer 

and will prevent potentially unnecessary and duplicative proceedings before this Court, thereby 

conserving both this Court and the Parties’ time and resources. 

In support of this Stipulation, the Parties state further as follows: 

The Pending MDL Motion for Transfer

1. On July 15, 2016, plaintiff Tanashiska Lumas, whose case is pending in the Southern 

District of Illinois, filed a Motion for Transfer before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, 

requesting creation of an MDL proceeding to centralize eleven talcum powder cases filed in federal 

court, including this case. (See In re Johnson & Johnson Talcum Powder Marketing, Sales Practices 

and Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2738 (MDL Dkt. # 1).) There are presently at least 38

individual actions pending in federal courts across the country in which Plaintiffs allege that perineal 

use of cosmetic talc products manufactured and marketed by Defendant Johnson & Johnson 

Consumer Inc. caused them to suffer ovarian cancer. In responding to the MDL Motion, the 

Johnson & Johnson Defendants did not oppose the creation of a multidistrict litigation proceeding 

for this action and other included actions pending nationwide. (See MDL Dkt. # 38.) The JPML set 

the hearing on the MDL Motion for its next Hearing Session on September 29, 2016, in Washington, 

D.C., and a ruling on whether this case and others will be centralized is anticipated shortly thereafter. 

(See MDL Dkt. # 57.)

2. The Parties agree that good cause exists to stay this action to permit the JPML to 

decide the pending Motion for Transfer. A stay will ensure that the JPML has an opportunity to hear 

and rule upon the Motion and will prevent potentially unnecessary and duplicative proceedings 

before this Court. “[A] majority of courts have concluded that it is often appropriate to stay 

preliminary pretrial proceedings while a motion to transfer and consolidate is pending with the MDL 

Panel because of the judicial resources that are conserved.” Rivers v. Walt Disney Co., 980 F. Supp. 

Case 4:16-cv-03838-HSG Document 15 Filed 09/21/16 Page 2 of 9
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

STIPULATED REQUEST FOR STAY PENDING MDL TRANSFER DECISION

 CASE NO. 4:16-CV-03838-HSG

1358, 1362 (C.D. Cal. 1997) (granting stay pending MDL transfer decision in part because “any 

efforts on behalf of this Court concerning case management will most likely have to be replicated by 

the judge that is assigned to handle the consolidated litigation.”). Should the JPML grant the Motion 

for Transfer this case likely will be transferred away from this Court and into an MDL proceeding

established elsewhere. Therefore, a stay will conserve both judicial resources and those of the 

Parties as well as facilitate the efficient conduct of this action before this Court and as part of any 

future MDL proceeding. See also Calder v. A.O. Smith Corp., No. 04-1481 (JRT/AJB), 2004 U.S. 

Dist. LEXIS 12083, at *1-2 (D. Minn. June 1, 2004) (granting motion to stay pending MDL Panel’s 

transfer decision on grounds that “[d]eference to the MDL court for resolution of these matters 

provides the opportunity for the uniformity, consistency, and predictability in litigation that underlies 

the multidistrict litigation system”); U.S. Bank, Nat’l Ass’n v. Royal Indem. Co., No. Civ. A 3:02-

CV-0853-P, 2002 WL 31114069, at *2 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 23, 2002) (“by granting the stay, the Court 

will avoid the unnecessary waste of judicial resources if the MDL Motion is ultimately granted.”).

3. The Parties further agree that a brief stay to permit the JPML to decide the Motion for 

Transfer will have no adverse effect on future proceedings in this action, nor will such a stay 

prejudice any of the Parties. 

Current Status of This Action

4. On July 8, 2016, Plaintiff Dolores Gould filed her Complaint and Demand for Jury 

Trial (“Complaint”) against the Johnson & Johnson Defendants (Dkt. #1).

5. On July 28, 2016, the Parties filed a joint Stipulation to Extend Time for the Johnson 

& Johnson Defendants to respond to the Complaint (Dkt. # 7), extending Defendants’ time to 

respond to September 27, 2016.

6. The Johnson & Johnson Defendants’ deadline to answer, move, or otherwise respond 

to Plaintiff’s Complaint is currently September 27, 2016.

7. In addition, the following early case deadlines currently exist: (1) the Parties’ last 

day to meet-and-confer regarding ADR process, file ADR Certifications, and file either Stipulation 

to ADR Process or Notice of Need for ADR Phone Conference is currently September 28, 2016; (2) 

Case 4:16-cv-03838-HSG Document 15 Filed 09/21/16 Page 3 of 9
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

STIPULATED REQUEST FOR STAY PENDING MDL TRANSFER DECISION

 CASE NO. 4:16-CV-03838-HSG

an initial Case Management Conference in this matter is set for October 18, 2016; and (3) the 

attendant Joint CMC Statement is currently due October 11, 2016.

Stipulated Stay

8. For the reasons stated herein, the Parties stipulate to and request a stay of this action 

for all purposes, including without limitation all responsive pleading, discovery, hearings, and other 

deadlines, to permit a ruling on the Motion for Transfer currently pending before the Judicial Panel 

on Multidistrict Litigation, which ruling the Parties expect to receive during the first two weeks of 

October 2016. The Parties agree that this stay shall remain in full force and effect until lifted by 

court order upon motion of one or more Parties or as otherwise ordered by this Court or the MDL 

Court following transfer to an MDL.

9. To the extent that this action is not transferred to an MDL by November 18, 2016, the 

Parties agree to provide the Court with a joint status report on or before that date to apprise the Court 

of the status of the Motion for Transfer.

10. No previous time modification has been requested by the Parties or ordered by the 

Court in this case. As described above, the Parties stipulated to an extension of the Johnson & 

Johnson Defendants’ deadline for responding to Plaintiff’s Complaint, and no other modifications 

have been sought or agreed to among the Parties. Granting this request will have no adverse effect 

on future proceedings in this matter.

Dated: September 20, 2016 PRATT & ASSOCIATES

By: /s/ Ben F. Pierce Gore

BEN F. PIERCE GORE

Attorneys for PLAINTIFF

Case 4:16-cv-03838-HSG Document 15 Filed 09/21/16 Page 4 of 9
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 5

STIPULATED REQUEST FOR STAY PENDING MDL TRANSFER DECISION

 CASE NO. 4:16-CV-03838-HSG

Dated: September 20, 2016 SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P.

By: /s/ _G. Gregg Webb_________________ G. GREGG WEBB

Attorneys for Defendants

JOHNSON & JOHNSON and 

JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER 

INC. formerly known as JOHNSON & 

JOHNSON CONSUMER 

COMPANIES, INC.

Case 4:16-cv-03838-HSG Document 15 Filed 09/21/16 Page 5 of 9
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 6

STIPULATED REQUEST FOR STAY PENDING MDL TRANSFER DECISION

 CASE NO. 4:16-CV-03838-HSG

ORDER

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 21, 2016 ________________________________________

HONORABLE HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:16-cv-03838-HSG Document 15 Filed 09/21/16 Page 6 of 9
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

STIPULATED REQUEST FOR STAY PENDING MDL TRANSFER DECISION

CASE NO. 4:16-CV-03838-HSG

SIGNATURE ATTESTATION

I, G. Gregg Webb, am the ECF User whose ID and password are being used to file this 

STIPULATED REQUEST FOR STAY PENDING MDL TRANSFER DECISION; 

DECLARATION OF G. GREGG WEBB, AND [PROPOSED] ORDER. In compliance with Local 

Rule 5-1(i), I hereby attest that counsel for all parties named have concurred in this filing.

DATED: September 20, 2016 SHOOK, HARDY & BACON, L.L.P.

By: /s/ G. Gregg Webb ______

G. GREGG WEBB

Attorneys for Defendants

JOHNSON & JOHNSON and

JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER 

INC. formerly known as JOHNSON & 

JOHNSON CONSUMER 

COMPANIES, INC.

Case 4:16-cv-03838-HSG Document 15 Filed 09/21/16 Page 7 of 9
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

STIPULATED REQUEST FOR STAY PENDING MDL TRANSFER DECISION

 CASE NO. 3:16-CV-04619-MMC

DECLARATION OF G. GREGG WEBB

I, G. Gregg Webb, hereby declare:

1. I am an attorney licensed to practice before all Courts of the State of California and 

am an attorney with Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, counsel of record for Defendants Johnson & 

Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc., formerly known as Johnson & Johnson Consumer 

Companies, Inc., (together, the “Johnson & Johnson Defendants,” and collectively with Plaintiff, 

“the Parties”).

2. On July 15, 2016, plaintiff Tanashiska Lumas, whose case is pending in the Southern 

District of Illinois, filed a Motion for Transfer before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, 

requesting creation of an MDL proceeding to centralize eleven talcum powder cases filed in federal 

court, including this case. (See In re Johnson & Johnson Talcum Powder Marketing, Sales Practices 

and Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2738 (MDL Dkt. # 1).) There are presently at least 38

individual actions pending in federal courts across the country in which Plaintiffs allege that perineal 

use of cosmetic talc products manufactured and marketed by Defendant Johnson & Johnson 

Consumer Inc. caused them to suffer ovarian cancer.

3. The Johnson & Johnson Defendants did not oppose the creation of an MDL. 

4. On August 11, 2016, the JPML set the hearing on the Motion for Transfer for its next 

Hearing Session on September 29, 2016, in Washington, D.C., and a ruling on whether this case and 

others will be centralized is anticipated shortly thereafter.

5. On July 8, 2016, Plaintiff Dolores Gould filed her Complaint and Demand for Jury 

Trial (“Complaint”) against the Johnson & Johnson Defendants (Dkt. #1).

6. On July 28, 2016, the Parties filed a joint Stipulation to Extend Time for the Johnson 

& Johnson Defendants to respond to the Complaint (Dkt. #7), extending Defendants’ time to respond 

to September 27, 2016.

7. The Johnson & Johnson Defendants’ deadline to answer, move, or otherwise respond 

to Plaintiff’s Complaint is currently September 27, 2016.

Case 4:16-cv-03838-HSG Document 15 Filed 09/21/16 Page 8 of 9
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

STIPULATED REQUEST FOR STAY PENDING MDL TRANSFER DECISION

 CASE NO. 4:16-CV-03838-HSG

8. In addition, the following early case deadlines currently exist: (1) the Parties’ last 

day to meet-and-confer regarding ADR process, file ADR Certifications, and file either Stipulation 

to ADR Process or Notice of Need for ADR Phone Conference is currently September 28, 2016; (2) 

an initial Case Management Conference in this matter is set for October 18, 2016; and (3) the 

attendant Joint CMC Statement is currently due October 11, 2016.

9. No previous time modification has been requested by the Parties or ordered by the 

Court in this case. As described above, the Parties stipulated to an extension of the Johnson & 

Johnson Defendants’ deadline for responding to Plaintiff’s Complaint, and no other modifications 

have been sought or agreed to among the Parties. Granting this request will have no adverse effect 

on future proceedings in this matter.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California and of the United 

States of America that the foregoing is true and correct, and this Declaration is executed on 

September 20, 2016, in Menlo Park, CA.

___/s/ __G. Gregg Webb_______ G. GREGG WEBB

Case 4:16-cv-03838-HSG Document 15 Filed 09/21/16 Page 9 of 9