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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LORETTA LITTLE, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

PFIZER INC, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-01177-EMC 

RELATED TO

Case No. 14-cv-01195-EMC 

Case No. 14-cv-01196-EMC 

Case No. 14-cv-01204-EMC 

Case No. 14-cv-01488-EMC 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Docket No. 129

Previously, the parties in the above-referenced case stipulated to a stay of proceedings 

pending a decision by Judge Carney of the Central District of California in multiple cases pending 

before him. In those cases, Judge Carney was presented with the issue of whether there is subject 

matter jurisdiction pursuant to CAFA’s mass action provision. That same issue is present in the 

instant action.

Plaintiffs have now notified the Court that Judge Carney has issued his decision. See 

Docket No. 129 (notice) (referencing order issued on May 23, 2017). More specifically, Judge 

Carney has concluded that subject matter jurisdiction is lacking and therefore granted the motion 

to remand back to state court. See Docket No. 129-1 (Order at 16) (holding that fewer “than 100 

plaintiffs have proposed that their cases be tried jointly” and so “the Court does not have 

jurisdiction under CAFA’s mass action provision and all Lipitor cases presently before this Court 

must be remanded to state court”). Plaintiffs have further notified the Court that, after Judge 

Carney issued his opinion, Pfizer moved to stay his order pending appeal to the Ninth Circuit. 

Judge Carney denied Pfizer’s motion on May 31, 2017. See Docket No. 129-2 (order). 
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

For the Northern District of California

In response to Plaintiffs’ notice, Pfizer has filed a statement with the Court, in which it 

asks the Court to “defer resolution of any motion to remand pending the Ninth Circuit’s review of 

Pfizer’s appeal.” Docket No. 130 (Resp. at 1). Pfizer points out that, under 28 U.S.C. § 1453, if 

the Ninth Circuit were to accept Pfizer’s appeal, it would have to “complete all action on such 

appeal, including rendering judgment, not later than 60 days after the date on which such appeal 

was filed, unless an extension is granted . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 1453(c)(2); see also id. § 1453(d)(3) 

(providing that an extension may be granted if all parties agree to an extension “for any period of 

time” or if good cause is shown for an extension and in the interests of justice “for a period not to 

exceed 10 days”). If the Court “declines to defer ruling on remand pending appeal,” Pfizer asks 

the Court to “enter a briefing schedule on Plaintiffs’ motion to remand.” Docket No. 130 (Resp. at 

1-2).

The Court is not persuaded by Pfizer’s contention that there should, in effect, be a stay 

pending appeal. Judge Carney explained in his second order why he would not issue a stay 

pending. Pfizer has not addressed any of Judge Carney’s reasons and rests solely on the timing 

provided for by § 1453.

The Court therefore shall order a briefing schedule on the remand issue, which is the 

alternative relief requested, in effect, by both parties. More specifically, the Court hereby orders 

Pfizer to show cause as to why the Court should not remand the pending action (as well as the

related cases, see Nos. C-14-1488 EMC, C-14-1195 EMC, C-14-1196 EMC, C-14-1204 EMC).

Pfizer’s response to this order to show cause shall be filed within three weeks of the date of 

this order. Plaintiffs may file a response to Pfizer’s filing within five weeks of the date of this 

order. If necessary, the Court shall thereafter set a hearing on the order to show cause.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 7, 2017

______________________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge