IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

BETTY WEATHERS, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

ELI LILLY AND COMPANY et al., 

 Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

 CASE NO.: 2:06-cv-0666-WHA 

 

ELI LILLY AND COMPANY’S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S

OPPOSITION TO LILLY’S MOTION TO STAY

Plaintiff’s opposition to a stay of proceedings is almost identical to the 

oppositions filed by Plaintiff’s counsel in Muhammad v. Lilly, Yolanda (Brown) McCain, et al., 

No.: 2:05-cv-1046-MHT (M.D. Ala.) (Thompson, J.), and McCray-Martin v. Lilly, Yolanda 

(Brown) McCain, et al., No.: 2:05-cv-1048-MHT (M.D. Ala.) (Thompson, J.), in which this 

Court granted Lilly’s Motions to Stay. Plaintiff has done nothing to modify the arguments that 

were rejected by this Court in those cases. See Orders, attached as Exhibits “A” & “B.” To 

promote judicial economy and consistency, this Court should grant a stay of proceedings in this 

case as well. 

Plaintiff’s opposition to Lilly’s Motion to Stay is demonstrably wrong on the 

current state of the law. This Court has already acknowledged that it plainly has authority to 

grant a stay to allow the Multidistrict Litigation transferee court to decide the motion for remand 

filed by Plaintiff. Also, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the “Panel”) has referred 

cases to the Zyprexa® MDL while motions for remand were pending. Indeed, Muhammad and 

McCray-Martin, which are virtually identical to the present case, are just two examples of the 

Case 2:06-cv-00666-WHA-TFM Document 15 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 1 of 12
-2- 

many cases transferred to the Zyprexa MDL with motions to remand pending. See Transfer 

Order, attached as Exhibit “C.” One more example is Crimes v. Lilly, Yolanda (Brown) McCain, 

et al., No.: 2:05-cv-1047-ID (M.D. Ala.), another identical case filed by Plaintiff’s counsel in 

which this Court deferred consideration of a motion to remand and allowed it to be transferred to 

the MDL.1

 See Exhibit “C.” 

Plaintiff’s counsel has now filed identical motions to remand in this case and 

eight others that are currently pending in this district, each involving exactly the same allegations 

against Lilly and Yolanda McCain that were made in Muhammad, McCray-Martin, and Crimes. 

See Frizzle v. Lilly, Yolanda McCain, et al., No.: 2:06-cv-467-MHT (M.D. Ala.) (removed from 

Cir. Ct. of Montgomery County); Gantt v. Lilly, Yolanda McCain, et al., No.: 2:06-cv-468-WHA 

(M.D. Ala.) (removed from Cir. Ct. of Montgomery County); Glover v. Lilly, Yolanda McCain, 

et al., No.: 2:06-cv-466-WHA (M.D. Ala.) (removed from Cir. Ct. of Montgomery County); 

Grant v. Lilly, Yolanda McCain, et al., No.: 2:06-cv-464-MHT (M.D. Ala.) (removed from Cir. 

Ct. of Lowndes County); Mallard v. Lilly, Yolanda McCain, et al., No.: 2:06-cv-481-WHA 

(M.D. Ala.) (removed from Cir. Ct. of Barbour County); Person v. Lilly, Yolanda McCain, et al., 

No.: 2:06-cv-465-WHA (M.D. Ala.) (removed from Cir. Ct. of Bullock County); Segrest v. Lilly, 

Yolanda McCain, et al., No.: 2:06-cv-542-WHA (M.D. Ala.) (removed from Cir. Ct. of 

Montgomery County); Wakefield v. Lilly, Yolanda McCain, et al., No.: 3:06-cv-460-WHA (M.D. 

 1

 Muhammad, McCray-Martin, and Crimes were all pending in this district at the same time. 

Plaintiff’s counsel filed the same Motion to Remand and Opposition to Motion to Stay in each of the three cases. 

Judge Thompson granted Lilly’s Motion to Stay in Muhammad and McCray-Martin. In Crimes, Judge DeMent did 

not rule on Lilly’s Motion to Stay or the plaintiff’s Motion to Remand, deferring consideration of those issues 

pending transfer of the case to the Zyprexa MDL. Despite different approaches to the same motions, the result was 

the same in all three cases – Muhammad, McCray-Martin, and Crimes were all transferred to the MDL on the same 

day. See Exhibit “C.” 

Case 2:06-cv-00666-WHA-TFM Document 15 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 2 of 12
-3- 

Ala.) (removed from Cir. Ct. of Macon County).2 Adding these more recent cases to 

Muhammad, McCray-Martin, and Crimes, Plaintiff’s counsel now has twelve identical cases 

pending against Lilly and Yolanda McCain. On July 27, 2006, this Court recognized the need 

for consistency among these cases and granted Lilly’s motions to stay in Frizzle and Grant, 

deferring consideration of plaintiffs’ remand motions to the MDL court. See Stay Orders, 

attached as Exhibits “D” & “E.” 

Plaintiff’s suggestion that a stay would not further judicial economy completely 

ignores these cases and those with similar issues already pending in the MDL. Moreover, 

Plaintiff counsel’s efforts to evade the MDL process and have this Court rule on a fact pattern to 

be repeatedly decided in the MDL undermines this Court’s prior decisions in Zyprexa-related 

cases and the Panel’s determination that pre-trial proceedings be consolidated, even if there are 

pending motions in the transferor court. See Letter from Panel Dated January 20, 2006 (attached 

as Exhibit “F”) (stating that deferring a decision on a motion to remand to the MDL court “may 

be especially appropriate if the motion raises questions likely to arise in other actions in the 

transferee court and, in the interest of uniformity, might best be decided there if the Panel orders 

centralization”). For these reasons, the Court should issue a stay. 

ARGUMENT

A. A Stay Should Be Granted Because Motions To Remand Removals Based On 

Fraudulent Joinder Should Be Decided By The MDL Transferee Judge.

Plaintiff’s opposition ignores not only the twelve identical cases filed by this 

Plaintiff’s counsel, but also a number of other cases filed in Alabama, which involve the 

 2

 These nine cases have followed the same track as Muhammad, McCray-Martin, and Crimes – 

Plaintiff’s counsel filed each of these nine cases in Alabama state court; Lilly removed each case to this Court based 

on diversity of citizenship and the fraudulent joinder of Yolanda McCain; Lilly filed nearly identical motions to stay 

in each case; Plaintiff’s counsel filed nearly identical motions to remand in each case; tag along notices have been 

submitted and the transfer of each case to the MDL is currently pending. 

Case 2:06-cv-00666-WHA-TFM Document 15 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 3 of 12
-4- 

fraudulent joinder of Lilly sales representatives and have been stayed and transferred to the 

MDL. See Wright v. Lilly, et al., No.: 2:06-cv-193-KD-C (S.D. Ala. May 3, 2006) (DuBose, J.); 

Anderson v. Lilly, et al., No.: 7:06-cv-636-LSC (N.D. Ala. Apr. 27, 2006) (Coogler, J.); 

Brownlee v. Lilly, et al., 7:06-cv-634-JEO (N.D. Ala. Apr. 5, 2006) (Ott, Mag.) (case stayed, 

transfer decision pending); Jackson v. Lilly, et al., No.: 5:06-cv-576-CLS (N.D. Ala. Apr. 5, 

2006) (Smith, J.); Hubbard v. Lilly, et al., No.: 3:06-cv-535-CLS (N.D. Ala. Apr. 5, 2006) 

(Smith, J.); Wesley v. Lilly, et al., No.: 2:06-cv-569-SLB (N.D. Ala. Mar. 27, 2006) (Blackburn, 

J.). As these courts have recognized, it is the MDL court, not this Court, that should decide any 

motions to remand. 

The efficacy of having the MDL court rule on any motion to remand is similarly 

evidenced by rulings in the Vioxx, Rezulin, Baycol, and Diet Drugs litigation. For example, the 

MDL transferee courts in the Baycol and Rezulin litigations have each addressed motions to 

remand based upon fraudulent joinder in actions before them. See, e.g., In re Baycol Prods. 

Liab. Litig., MDL 1431, No. 02-4835, 2003 WL 21223842 (D.Minn. May 27, 2003) (nondiverse 

physician fraudulently joined; motion to remand denied); In re Baycol Prods. Liab. Litig., MDL 

1431, No. 02-129, 2002 WL 32155268 (D.Minn. May 24, 2002) (nondiverse pharmacy 

fraudulently joined to defeat diversity; motion to remand denied); In re Rezulin Prods. Liab. 

Litig., 133 F. Supp. 2d 272 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (“Rezulin I”) (denying motions to remand where 

sales representatives and physicians fraudulently joined, granting one motion where codefendant 

did not consent to removal); In re Rezulin Prods. Liab. Litig., 168 F. Supp. 2d (S.D.N.Y. 2001) 

(“Rezulin II”) (denying motions to remand in Alabama cases where sales representative was 

fraudulently joined, granting Texas motions on other grounds). 

Case 2:06-cv-00666-WHA-TFM Document 15 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 4 of 12
-5- 

Courts in the Vioxx litigation have routinely stayed proceedings pending transfer 

of the cases to the MDL. See Walker v. Merck & Co., Inc., No. 05-cv-360-DRH, 2005 U.S. Dist. 

Lexis 13693, *1 (S.D. Ill. June 22, 2005) (noting that there are over 600 Vioxx-related cases that 

have been stayed, including more than 70 cases with pending motions to remand). In deciding to 

grant a stay of proceedings despite the pendancy of a motion to remand, the court in Walker

noted that judicial economy weighs in favor of a stay and that judicial economy and the threat of 

inconsistent rulings outweighs any possible prejudice to the plaintiffs. Id. at *6. 

Disregarding Zyprexa-related cases involving the fraudulent joinder of local sales 

representatives and recent decisions from other pharmaceutical litigation, Plaintiff instead 

focuses on five remand orders from the Southern District of Alabama in cases involving the 

joinder of local physicians. See Bailey v. Lilly, et al., No.: 1:06-cv-262-WS (S.D. Ala. Jun. 5, 

2006) (Steele, J.); Beck v. Lilly, et al., No.: 1:06-cv-263-WS (S.D. Ala. Jun. 5, 2006) (Steele, J.); 

Betts v. Lilly, et al., No.:1:06-cvv-259-WS (S.D. Ala. Jun. 5, 2006) (Steele, J.); Etheridge v. 

Lilly, et al., No.: 2:06-cv-260-WS (S.D. Ala. Jun. 5, 2006) (Steele, J.); Vincent v. Lilly, et al., 

No.: 2:06-cv-264-WS (S.D. Ala. Jun. 5, 2006) (Steele, J.). Plaintiff calls those cases “nearly 

identical” to the present case (Plaintiff’s Brief in Support of Motion to Remand at 6), yet the 

joinder of physicians raises very different issues than does the joinder of sales representatives. 

Moreover, the Southern District cases had a different local physician joined in each case. Here, 

Plaintiff’s counsel has joined the same sales representative – Yolanda McCain – in twelve 

identical cases, three of which – Muhammad, McCray-Martin, and Crimes – are currently 

pending in the MDL. Further, Yolanda McCain has submitted sworn, unrebutted testimony that 

effectively negates the allegations against her. No affidavits or declarations were submitted in 

Case 2:06-cv-00666-WHA-TFM Document 15 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 5 of 12
-6- 

the Southern District cases. Plaintiff’s reliance on those cases is therefore misplaced, and the 

Southern District remand orders are inapposite. 

Plaintiff also relies heavily on older rulings in the Diet Drugs litigation and old 

statements made by the Diet Drugs MDL Court (Judge Bartle) to support her claims. Plaintiff, 

however, ignores that Judge Bartle has more recently addressed a motion to remand in an action 

where a defendant removed based upon fraudulent joinder, the plaintiff moved to remand and the 

transferor court deferred ruling to allow the action to be transferred to the MDL. In re Diet 

Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., MDL 1203, No. 03-20370, 2004 WL 2624851 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 18, 

2004) (denying motion to remand and referencing earlier ruling on fraudulent joinder in 

Anderson v. American Home Products, 220 F. Supp. 2d 414 (E.D. Pa. 2002)). 

The Diet Drugs MDL court further determined that it is the best forum to resolve 

these removal issues, stating: 

Recurrent issues have continued to emerge in connection with 

motions to remand to state courts cases removed by Wyeth on the 

basis of diversity of citizenship. . . . We are continuing to address 

the fraudulent joinder of individual physicians and pharmacies as 

defendants as a means to prevent removal. Many of these issues 

have common patterns as well as ramifications far beyond any 

specific case. Again, we believe these issues are best resolved in a 

uniform manner through the coordinated proceedings of MDL 

1203. 

Braden v. Wyeth, No. 04-PT-0235-E, 2004 U.S. Dist. Lexis 28734 at *65-66 (N.D. Ala. April 5, 

2004) (quoting In re Diet Drugs Product Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1203, PTO-2984). 

B. All Parties Will Benefit By Transfer To An Active, Advanced MDL.

Plaintiff’s suggestion that a settlement not involving Plaintiff’s counsel somehow 

affects whether to stay this case, or otherwise suggests that discovery is stalled in the MDL, is 

mystifying. The exact opposite is true. The Zyprexa MDL is at an advanced stage. The parties 

are in the middle of fact discovery, the Plaintiff’s Steering Committee has recently noticed a 

Case 2:06-cv-00666-WHA-TFM Document 15 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 6 of 12
-7- 

number of depositions, discovery from Lilly is to be completed before year end, and motions for 

summary judgment and Daubert motions are to be filed promptly thereafter. See Case 

Management Order No. 18, attached as Exhibit “G.” 

All parties will benefit from the coordinated discovery and pre-trial proceedings 

that are ongoing in the MDL, as well as the discovery that has already taken place. For example, 

Plaintiff’s counsel will have the advantage of coordinated discovery consisting of over 4.5 

million pages of documents already produced, over a dozen designee depositions already 

conducted, and Case Management Orders addressing a range of issues. Notably, Plaintiff’s 

counsel here is already an active participant in the MDL with several non-settled cases pending 

there. Thus, there is absolutely no added hardship to their participation in the MDL with this 

case. 

C. This Court Has The Authority To Grant A Stay With A Motion To Remand 

Pending.

Plaintiff ignores this Court’s previous decisions to stay Zyprexa-related cases and 

suggests that the filing of a motion to remand somehow affects the Court’s authority to grant a 

stay. To support this argument, Plaintiff misuses the Eleventh Circuit in University of South Ala. 

v. The American Tobacco Co., and wrongly suggests that this Court must examine jurisdictional 

issues prior to taking any action in the case. 168 F.3d 405, 410 (11th Cir. 1999).3

 

 3

 Lilly’s removal papers are supported by Eleventh Circuit precedent, most notably, the October 25, 

2005 holding in Legg v. Wyeth, 428 F.3d 1317 (11th Cir. 2005). The Court in Legg makes it clear that simply 

naming a sales representative does not defeat diversity jurisdiction. Instead, this practice can, at best, be 

“characterized as a sham, at the unfair expense, not only of [the Company], but of many individuals and small 

enterprises that are being unfairly dragged into court simply to prevent the adjudication against [the Company], the 

real target, in a federal forum.” Id. at 1320 (citing Anderson v. Am. Home Prods. Corp., 220 F. Supp. 2d 414, 425 

(E.D. Pa. 2002)). As the Eleventh Circuit stated in Legg, “The removal process was created by Congress to protect 

defendants. Congress ‘did not extend such protections with one hand, and with the other hand give plaintiffs a bag 

of tricks to overcome it.’” Id. at 1325 (quoting McKinney v. Bd. of Trustees of Mayland Cmty. Coll., 955 F.2d 924, 

928 (4th Cir. 1992)). 

Case 2:06-cv-00666-WHA-TFM Document 15 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 7 of 12
-8- 

Granting a motion to stay proceedings, however, is not considered “taking action” 

or “adjudicating the merits” of a case. See Meyers v. Bayer AG, 143 F. Supp. 2d 1044, 1047 

(E.D. Wis. 2001) (declining to follow Stern v. Mut. Life Ins. Co. of N.Y., 968 F. Supp. 637 (N.D. 

Ala. 1997)). Furthermore, in University of South Alabama, the court’s primary concern was the 

propriety of making substantive rulings concerning Alabama law, namely deciding a motion to 

dismiss the case, without first determining whether the court had jurisdiction over the matter. 

Because the district court failed to consider the jurisdictional question prior to granting the 

motion to dismiss, the Eleventh Circuit held that the district court erred. University of South 

Alabama, 168 F.3d 405. These substantive concerns are not implicated here. The court in 

University of South Alabama was not faced with a motion to stay pending transfer to the MDL, 

where any motion to remand would be heard prior to other substantive ruling in the case. This is 

a course that is proper and well within the district court’s authority even where a federal court’s 

jurisdiction is challenged on remand.4

Plaintiff’s argument, therefore, would overrule seventy years of precedent 

establishing that the Court’s power to stay its 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); see 

also Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1967) (“The District Court has broad discretion to stay 

proceedings as an incident to its power to control its own docket.”). 

 4

 See, e.g., In re Ivy, 901 F.2d 7, 9 (2d Cir. 1990) (recognizing authority to stay action despite 

pending remand motion); In re Amino Acid Lysine Antitrust Litig., 910 F. Supp. 696, 700 (J.P.M.L. 1995) (ordering 

consolidation and transfer and recognizing that “the pending motion to remand . . . can be presented to and decided 

by the transferee judge”); Med. Soc’y v. Conn. Gen.. Corp., 187 F. Supp. 2d 89, 91 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (declining to 

decide motion to remand pending transfer decision by the MDL Panel); Aikens v. Microsoft Corp., No. 00-0242,

2000 WL 310391, at *1 (E.D. La. Mar. 24, 2000) (declining to decide motion to remand pending transfer decision 

by the MDL Panel); Johnson v. AMR Corp., No. 1:95-cv-07664, 1996 WL 164415, at *3-4 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 3, 1996) 

(staying ruling on jurisdictional motion pending transfer decision by the JPML). 

Case 2:06-cv-00666-WHA-TFM Document 15 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 8 of 12
-9- 

Plaintiff’s citation to Nicholas v. Prudential Ins. Co. is also unavailing. In 

Nicholas, the question facing the court was whether or not the supplemental jurisdiction statute, 

28 U.S.C. §1367(a), confers removal jurisdiction on the court. No. 97-0204-CB-C, 1997 U.S. 

Dist. Lexis 6579, *1 (S.D. Ala. April 28, 1997). The court noted that “[t]here can be no dispute 

that this Court lacks original jurisdiction to hear this case” because the parties are not diverse and 

no federal question is implicated. Id. at *10. The court held that the removal statute’s 

requirement that courts have original jurisdiction does not include supplemental jurisdiction. Id. 

at *11-12. The court declined to grant a stay solely on the grounds that the removal was “clearly 

improper” and “to stay these proceedings when the Court clearly lacks subject matter jurisdiction 

is contrary to Congress’ intent.” Id. at *15. 

That concern is not implicated here, where Lilly has validly removed the case on 

the grounds that diversity of citizenship exists by virtue of fraudulent joinder, which is supported 

by Eleventh Circuit precedent.5

 See Crowe v. Coleman, 113 F.3d 1536, 1542 (11th Cir. 1997); 

see also, Braden, 2004 U.S. Dist. Lexis 28734, *1 (staying consideration of remand motion 

pending transfer and ruling by transferee judge).6

 5

 Similarly, Plaintiff has cited to Lloyd v. Cabell Huntington Hospital, Inc., 58 F. Supp. 2d 694 

(S.D.W.Va. 1999) in support of her opposition to the motion to stay. The court in Lloyd declined to grant a stay 

where not all defendants had joined in the removal, making the removal facially invalid. Id. The procedural flaw in 

that case meant that the court never had subject matter jurisdiction. This is clearly not the situation here as all 

necessary defendants have consented to removal. 

6

 The court in Braden agreed with the language of Betty Hagler v. Wyeth, CV-04-A-11-N (M.D. 

Ala. Feb. 23, 2004), in which it was stated that: 

There is similarity in issues involved in remand motions in these cases 

nationwide, i.e., whether sales representatives and other individual resident 

defendants have been fraudulently joined to avoid federal jurisdiction. This 

court recognizes its authority to consider and rule on a Motion to Remand at any 

time before a final transfer, but finds it to be more appropriate to await a 

determination by the MDL Panel in regard to transfer. A transfer to the MDL 

Court does not result in a denial of a motion to remand; it simply leaves the 

motion for determination by the MDL judge. Because of the similarity of these 

issues nationally, and in the interests of uniformity and judicial economy, this 

(continued...)

Case 2:06-cv-00666-WHA-TFM Document 15 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 9 of 12
-10- 

Similarly, the Tenth Circuit law recited by Plaintiff does not speak to the issue 

presently before this Court. See Aetna U.S. Healthcare, Inc. v. Hoechst Aktiengesellschaft, 54 F. 

Supp. 2d 1042 (D.Kan. 1999), Bellinder v. Microsoft Corp., No. 99-2578-KHV, 2000 U.S. Dist. 

Lexis 6789, *1 (D.Kan. March 24, 2000), and Havens Protected “C” Clamps, Inc. v. Pilkington, 

PLC, No. 00-2035-JWL, 2000 WL 382027, *1 (D.Kan. March 28, 2000).7

 These three cases 

involved class action lawsuits where the motions to remand were based upon failure to meet the 

amount in controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction. Tenth Circuit precedent established 

that the court did not have jurisdiction and a stay was therefore not appropriate.8 Here, the issue 

is fraudulent joinder of a sales representative, which courts in this Circuit and in others have 

found to weigh in favor of granting a stay to promote judicial economy and efficiency. See, e.g., 

Braden, 2004 U.S. Dist. Lexis 28734, *1.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons and for the reasons stated in Lilly’s Memorandum in 

Support of its Motion to Stay, Lilly respectfully requests that this Court grant its Motion to Stay 

________________________ 

(continued...)

court finds that the remand motion is best left for consideration and 

determination by the judge who is considering the same issues on a nationwide 

basis, in the event the case is ordered transferred. 

Braden, 2004 U.S. Dist. Lexis 28734 at *74-75. 

7

 Plaintiff also cites to Tortola Restaurants v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 987 F. Supp. 1186 (N.D. Cal. 

1997), which also declined to grant a stay where defendants had not shown that all members of the class satisfied the 

amount in controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction. For the reasons stated above, this case should not be 

persuasive on the issue before this Court. 

8

 See Aetna, 54 F. Supp. 2d 1042 (remanding on grounds that all members of the class must meet 

amount in controversy requirement and no federal question exists); Bellinder, 2000 U.S. Dist. Lexis 6789, *1 

(remanding where defendant has not shown that amount in controversy for each member of the class is greater than 

$75,000); Havens, 2000 WL 382027, *1 (same). 

Case 2:06-cv-00666-WHA-TFM Document 15 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 10 of 12
-11- 

all proceedings in this case pending transfer to the MDL proceeding that has been established in 

the Eastern District of New York. 

s/ James C. Barton, Jr. 

 James C. Barton, Jr. (BAR014) 

Bar Number: ASB-0237-B51J 

Email: jbartonjr@jbpp.com 

s/ Alan D. Mathis 

 Alan D. Mathis (MAT052) 

Bar Number: ASB-8922-A59M 

Email: adm@jbpp.com 

 Attorneys for defendant 

Eli Lilly and Company 

JOHNSTON BARTON PROCTOR & POWELL LLP

2900 AmSouth/Harbert Plaza 

1901 Sixth Avenue North 

Birmingham, AL 35203 

(205) 458-9400 

(205) 458-9500 (fax) 

OF COUNSEL 

Case 2:06-cv-00666-WHA-TFM Document 15 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 11 of 12
-12- 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 I hereby certify that I electronically filed the above and foregoing with the Clerk of the 

Court on August 10, 2006, using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing 

to the following: 

 E. Frank Woodson, Esq. 

 Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, 

 Portis & Miles, P.C. 

 P.O. Box 4160 

 Montgomery, Alabama 36104 

 

 s/ Alan D. Mathis 

 Of Counsel 

W0568651.DOC

Case 2:06-cv-00666-WHA-TFM Document 15 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 12 of 12
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION

SHAHEED MUHAMMAD, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

v. ) 2:05cv1046-T

)

ELI LILLY AND COMPANY and )

YOLANDA BROWN, Sales )

Representative, )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

It is ORDERED that the motion to stay (Doc. No. 6) is

granted and that this cause is stayed pending MDL

transfer.

DONE, this the 22nd day of November, 2005.

 /s/ Myron H. Thompson 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00666-WHA-TFM Document 15-2 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 1 of 1 Case 2:05-cv-01046-MHT-VPM Document 11 Filed 11/22/2005 Page 1 of 1

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION

SANQUIRNETTA McCRAY-MARTIN, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

v. ) 2:05cv1048-T

)

ELI LILLY AND COMPANY and )

YOLANDA BROWN, Sales )

Representative, )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

It is ORDERED that the motion to stay (Doc. No. 1) is

granted and that this cause is stayed pending MDL

transfer.

DONE, this the 22nd day of November, 2005.

 /s/ Myron H. Thompson 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00666-WHA-TFM Document 15-3 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 1 of 1 Case 2:05-cv-01048-MHT-SRW Document 13 Filed 11/22/2005 Page 1 of 1

Case 2:06-cv-00666-WHA-TFM Document 15-4 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 1 of 4
Case 2:06-cv-00666-WHA-TFM Document 15-4 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 2 of 4
Case 2:06-cv-00666-WHA-TFM Document 15-4 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 3 of 4
Case 2:06-cv-00666-WHA-TFM Document 15-4 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 4 of 4
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION

ROBERT FRIZZLE, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

v. ) 2:06cv467-MHT

) (WO)

ELI LILLY and COMPANY and )

YOLANDA McCAIN, Sales )

Sales Representative, )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

It is ORDERED that the motion for stay (doc. no. 4) is

granted and this cause is stayed pending MDL transfer.

See, e.g., Grant v. Eli Lilly and Company, civil action

no. 2:06cv464-MHT (M.D. Ala. July 27, 2006) (order staying

case, including remand motion, pending MDL transfer);

McCray-Martin v. Eli Lilly and Company, civil action no.

2:05cv1048-T (M.D. Ala. Nov. 22, 2005) (same); Muhammad v.

Case 2:06-cv-00666-WHA-TFM Document 15-5 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 1 of 2 Case 2:06-cv-00467-MHT-SRW Document 18 Filed 07/27/2006 Page 1 of 2

Eli Lilly and Company, civil action no. 2:05cv1046-T (M.D.

Ala. Nov. 22, 2005) (same).

DONE, this the 27th day of July, 2006.

 /s/ Myron H. Thompson 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00666-WHA-TFM Document 15-5 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 2 of 2 Case 2:06-cv-00467-MHT-SRW Document 18 Filed 07/27/2006 Page 2 of 2

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION

MATTIE GRANT, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

v. ) 2:06cv464-MHT

) (WO) 

ELI LILLY AND COMPANY, and )

YOLANDA McCAIN, )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

It is ORDERED that the motion for stay (doc. no. 5) is

granted and this cause is stayed pending MDL transfer.

See, e.g., McCray-Martin v. Eli Lilly and Company, civil

action no. 2:05cv1048-T (M.D. Ala. Nov. 22, 2005) (order

staying case, including remand motion, pending MDL

transfer); Muhammad v. Eli Lilly and Company, civil action

no. 2:05cv1046-T (M.D. Ala. Nov. 22, 2005) (same).

DONE, this the 27th day of July, 2006.

 /s/ Myron H. Thompson 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00666-WHA-TFM Document 15-6 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 1 of 1 Case 2:06-cv-00464-MHT-VPM Document 17 Filed 07/27/2006 Page 1 of 1

Case 2:06-cv-00666-WHA-TFM Document 15-7 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 1 of 1 Case 1:04-md-01596-JBW-RLM Document 362 Filed 01/24/2006 Page 1 of 1

Case 2:06-cv-00666-WHA-TFM Document 15-8 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:06-cv-00666-WHA-TFM Document 15-8 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:06-cv-00666-WHA-TFM Document 15-8 Filed 08/10/2006 Page 3 of 3