Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-00254/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-00254-11/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company
Defendant
Otsuka America Pharmaceutical, Inc.
Defendant
Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.
Defendant
Stephanie Pamintuan
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEPHANIE PAMINTUAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, 

et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-00254-HSG 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' 

MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS 

PENDING MDL PANEL DECISION

Re: Dkt. No. 57

Before the Court is the motion to stay proceedings pending decision by the Judicial Panel 

on Multidistrict Litigation (“Panel”) filed by Defendants Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Otsuka 

America Pharmaceutical, Inc., and Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. (together, “Defendants”). 

Dkt. No. 57 (“Mot.”). Plaintiff Stephanie Pamintuan (“Plaintiff”) does not oppose the motion. 

On June 24, 2016, the parties filed a joint petition with the Panel to transfer this case (and 

25 others that also allege Defendants’ pharmaceutical Abilify caused compulsive behavior) to one

consolidated MDL proceeding. Id., Ex. A. Defendants request a stay of proceedings in this Court 

pending the Panel’s decision on whether to order transfer of the action. Defendants contend that 

any further proceedings in this Court, including a decision on the pending motion to dismiss for 

lack of personal jurisdiction, would endanger uniformity of treatment among the Abilify cases. Id.

at 6. The parties expect the Panel to hear the petition on September 29, 2016. Id. at 7.

A district court’s “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. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). Using this 

power, a case may be stayed pending the resolution of independent judicial proceedings that bear 

upon the case. Leyva v. Certified Grocers of Cal., Ltd., 593 F.2d 857, 863-64 (9th Cir. 1997). A 

Case 4:16-cv-00254-HSG Document 60 Filed 07/14/16 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Landis stay is generally of a limited duration. See Landis, 299 U.S. at 256 (stating that a district 

court abuses its discretion by entering a “stay of indefinite duration in the absence of a pressing 

need”); Dependable Highway Exp., Inc. v. Navigators Ins. Co., 498 F.3d 1059, 1066-67 (9th Cir. 

2007) (reversing district court for imposing Landis stay of indefinite nature). 

In order to determine whether a Landis stay should be implemented, courts consider: (1) 

“the possible damage which may result from the granting of a stay,” (2) “the hardship or inequity 

which a party may suffer in being required to go forward,” and (3) “the orderly course of justice 

measured in terms of the simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law which 

could be expected to result from a stay.” CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962) 

(citing Landis, 299 U.S. at 254-55). Whether to grant a stay request is a matter entrusted to the 

discretion of the district court. See Landis, 299 U.S. at 254 (“How this can best be done calls for 

the exercise of judgment, which must weigh competing interests and maintain an even balance.”).

The Court finds that a temporary stay of proceedings in this action is appropriate pending a 

decision by the Panel on whether to consolidate the Abilify compulsive behavior cases in a single

MDL proceeding. Under these circumstances, it makes sense for the court handling any MDL to 

have the opportunity to resolve issues like personal jurisdiction in a uniform manner. Silverthorn 

v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., No. 15-cv-1428, 2015 WL 2356785, at *7 (N.D. Cal. May 15, 2015). 

But more importantly, there does not appear to be any risk of harm or prejudice to any party or 

third party, especially in the light of Plaintiff’s consent. And given that the Panel intends to hear 

the matter on September 29, 2016, the stay will be temporary and limited in duration. 

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ unopposed motion to stay this case pending 

a decision by the Panel on whether to transfer this action to a consolidated MDL proceeding.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

7/14/2016

Case 4:16-cv-00254-HSG Document 60 Filed 07/14/16 Page 2 of 2