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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANNETTE PETERS,

Plaintiff,

v.

PFIZER INC., et al.,

Defendants.

NO. C14-1196 TEH

ORDER GRANTING IN PART

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO

STAY AND DENYING

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO

REMAND

This matter has been conditionally transferred to Multidistrict Litigation (“MDL”)

Docket No. 2502, In re: Lipitor (Atorvastatin Calcium) Marketing, Sales Practices and

Products Liability Litigation (No. II). Defendant Pfizer Inc. has moved to stay all

proceedings pending final MDL transfer and pending the Ninth Circuit’s en banc decision in

Romo v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Case No. 13-56310, and Corber v. Xanodyne

Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Case No. 13-56306.

Plaintiff Annette Peters has filed a motion to remand, which raises issues that do not

appear to be unique to this case. Indeed, nearly identical motions have been filed in three

cases pending before other judges in this district. Little v. Pfizer Inc., Case No. 14-1177

EMC, ECF No. 24-1 (filed in conjunction with motion to shorten time); Rouda v. Pfizer Inc.,

Case No. 14-1195 JST, ECF No. 18; Davis v. Pfizer Inc., Case No. 14-1201 SI, ECF No. 15. 

All three cases have also been conditionally transferred to MDL Docket No. 2502.

Courts have inherent power to control their own dockets, including the power to stay

proceedings in the interests of judicial economy. Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55

(1936). When considering a motion to stay pending possible MDL transfer, courts consider

several factors, including: “(1) conserving judicial resources and avoiding duplicative

litigation; (2) hardship and inequity to the moving party if the action is not stayed; and

Case 3:14-cv-01196-EMC Document 21 Filed 03/27/14 Page 1 of 2
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

(3) potential prejudice to the non-moving party.” In re Apple iPhone Application Litig., Case

No. 10-CV-05878-LHK, 2011 WL 2149102, at *2 (N.D. Cal. May 31, 2011).

Upon careful consideration, the Court finds that a stay pending final MDL transfer is

in the interests of judicial economy, and it does not appear that a stay will cause prejudice to

either party. The issues raised by Peters in her motion to remand are not unique to this case

and, if these cases are transferred to the MDL court, would be better addressed in those

proceedings by a single judge. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Pfizer’s

motion to stay is GRANTED IN PART. This case is hereby stayed pending further

consideration by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML”) of whether this case

should be transferred to the MDL court.

Pfizer’s motion to stay is DENIED as to the pending en banc Ninth Circuit cases,

without prejudice to raising the issue again either before the MDL court or before this Court

if the case is not transferred. If the case is not transferred, Pfizer shall, within fourteen days

of the order declining transfer, file a renewed motion to stay or a statement that it does not

intend to seek a further stay of these proceedings.

In light of the stay, Peters’s motion to remand is DENIED without prejudice. Peters

may re-file her motion before the MDL court or, if the case is not transferred, before this

Court after the stay has been lifted.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 03/27/14 

THELTON E. HENDERSON, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 3:14-cv-01196-EMC Document 21 Filed 03/27/14 Page 2 of 2