1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

ERNEST REED, et al,

Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

GUIDANT CORPORATION, 

GUIDANT SALES 

CORPORATION and JOE DOE 

DEFENDANTS,

 Defendants. 

2:06CV763

UNOPPOSED

JOINT MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS PENDING 

TRANSFER TO MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION ("MDL")

Defendants Guidant Corporation and Guidant Sales Corporation 

(collectively, “Defendants”) hereby move the Court pursuant to Rule 6(b) of 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to stay all proceedings – including, but 

not limited to, (i) the time period for Defendants to answer or otherwise 

respond to Plaintiffs’ Complaint, (ii) the period for initial disclosures 

pursuant to Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and (iii) other 

discovery and pretrial deadlines -- pending the Judicial Panel on 

Multidistrict Litigation’s (“JPML”) decision regarding transfer of Plaintiffs’ 

claims against Defendants to MDL 1708. In support of this motion, 

Defendants state: 

Case 2:06-cv-00763-WKW-DRB Document 5 Filed 09/15/2006 Page 1 of 5
2

Over 575 cases involving cardiac medical devices manufactured by 

Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. (“CPI”) have been filed in or removed to federal 

courts throughout the country. On November 7, 2005, the JPML established 

an MDL Court and began transferring cases involving these cardiac devices 

to the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota for 

consolidated pretrial proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, attached 

hereto as Exhibit A. Among the primary purposes of consolidating these 

cases cited by the JPML was to conserve judicial resources and to avoid 

inconsistent rulings. 

Judges in the United States District Court for the Northern District of 

Alabama have stayed proceedings pending transfer to an MDL Court. See 

Schuck v. Guidant Corp., 2:06-CV-00101-RRA (N.D. Ala., Jan. 27, 2006) 

(Order Granting Stay, Armstrong, J.); Christon v. Guidant Corp., 7:06-CV00977-LSC (N.D. Ala., June 9, 2006) (Order Granting Stay, Coogler, J.) 

(attached hereto as Exhibit B). Since the MDL Court was created, more 

than 535 cases have already been transferred or ordered to be transferred to 

that Court, and more cases are in the process of being transferred. 

Defendants have notified the JPML that Plaintiffs’ claims against 

Defendants are appropriate for transfer to the MDL Court. See, e.g., 

Defendants 39th Notice of Potential Tag-Along Actions, attached hereto as

Case 2:06-cv-00763-WKW-DRB Document 5 Filed 09/15/2006 Page 2 of 5
3

Exhibit C. Defendants expect that the JPML will transfer this case 

promptly. 

Defendants and Plaintiffs stipulate and agree that the stay shall remain 

effective until as otherwise ordered by the MDL Court. The parties further 

stipulate and agree that Defendants shall answer or otherwise respond to the 

Complaint filed herein after this case is transferred to the MDL Court, and in 

accordance with the requirements and deadlines established by the MDL 

Court. 

The 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. See

Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936); Nelson v. Grooms, 

307 F.2d 76 (5th Cir. 1962); Home Insurance Co. v. Coastal Lumber Co., 

575 F. Supp. 1081, 1083 (N.D. Ga. 1983). The Court has the inherent power 

to stay proceedings pending the resolution of related issues in another forum. 

See Genesis Hill v. Betty Mitchell, 30 F. Supp. 2d 997, 1000 (S.D. Ohio 

1998). In view of the likelihood that this action will be consolidated with 

the other cases involving Guidant products and transferred to MDL 1708, 

the stay to which the parties have stipulated would serve the interests of 

judicial economy. 

Case 2:06-cv-00763-WKW-DRB Document 5 Filed 09/15/2006 Page 3 of 5
4

 The attorneys for Plaintiffs have reviewed this Joint Motion to Stay 

Proceedings Pending Transfer to Multidistrict Litigation (“MDL”) and 

consent to the attorneys for the Guidant Defendants e-filing this motion. 

Respectfully submitted this the 15th day of September 2006.

 

Respectfully submitted, 

s/ Andrew B. Johnson 

Fred M. Haston, III 

Andrew B. Johnson 

BRADLEY ARANT ROSE & WHITE LLP

One Federal Place 

1819 Fifth Avenue North 

Birmingham, AL 35203-2119 

Telephone: (205) 521-8000 

Facsimile: (205) 521-8800 

E-mail: ajohnson@bradleyarant.com

thaston@bradleyarant.com

Attorneys for Defendants Guidant 

Corporation and Guidant Sales Corporation 

Case 2:06-cv-00763-WKW-DRB Document 5 Filed 09/15/2006 Page 4 of 5
5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on September 15th 2006, I electronically 

filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system 

which will send notification of such filing to the following: 

Kathryn S. Harrinton, Esq 

Hollis & Wright P.C. 

505 North 20th Street, Suite 1500 

Birmingham, Alabama 35203 

kathrynh@hollis-wright.com

Counsel for Plaintiff 

and I hereby certify that I have mailed by United States Postal Service the 

document to the following non-CM/ECF participants: 

NONE 

s/ Andrew B. Johnson 

1/1491746.1

Case 2:06-cv-00763-WKW-DRB Document 5 Filed 09/15/2006 Page 5 of 5
Case 2:06-cv-00763-WKW-DRB Document 5-2 Filed 09/15/2006 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:06-cv-00763-WKW-DRB Document 5-2 Filed 09/15/2006 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:06-cv-00763-WKW-DRB Document 5-2 Filed 09/15/2006 Page 3 of 3
Case 2:06-cv-00763-WKW-DRB Document 5-3 Filed 09/15/2006 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:06-cv-00763-WKW-DRB Document 5-3 Filed 09/15/2006 Page 2 of 2
Case 2:06-cv-00763-WKW-DRB Document 5-4 Filed 09/15/2006 Page 1 of 6
Case 2:06-cv-00763-WKW-DRB Document 5-4 Filed 09/15/2006 Page 2 of 6
Case 2:06-cv-00763-WKW-DRB Document 5-4 Filed 09/15/2006 Page 3 of 6
Case 2:06-cv-00763-WKW-DRB Document 5-4 Filed 09/15/2006 Page 4 of 6
Case 2:06-cv-00763-WKW-DRB Document 5-4 Filed 09/15/2006 Page 5 of 6
Case 2:06-cv-00763-WKW-DRB Document 5-4 Filed 09/15/2006 Page 6 of 6