Mitchell et al v. Pfizer, Inc. et al
Filing
20
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS PENDING A DECISION ON TRANSFER BY THE JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION 7 9 (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 8/20/2012)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
13
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS
PENDING A DECISION ON TRANSFER
BY THE JUDICIAL PANEL ON
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
Plaintiffs,
11
12
No. C 12-3499 SI
JANET MITCHELL, et al.,
v.
PFIZER, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
14
/
15
Several motions are scheduled for a hearing on August 24, 2012. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule
16
7-1(b), the Court determines that the matters are appropriate for resolution without oral argument, and
17
VACATES the hearing. For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS defendants’ motion to stay
18
all proceedings in this case pending a final decision on transfer by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
19
Litigation. In the event the Panel does not transfer this action, the Court will rule on plaintiffs’ motion
20
for remand.
21
22
DISCUSSION
23
This case is one of many involving prescription diet drugs Pondimin® (“fenfluramine”) and
24
Redux® (“dexfenfluramine”), currently pending in federal court. Plaintiffs originally filed this case in
25
the Superior Court for the County of San Francisco against Pfizer, Inc., Wyeth, Inc., Wyeth
26
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Wyeth Holdings Corp., McKesson Corporation, and numerous Doe defendants.
27
The complaint alleges that plaintiffs were prescribed Pondimin® and/or Redux®, and that they have
28
1
been diagnosed with primary pulmonary hypertension as a result of their ingestion, consumption and
2
use of those drugs. On July 5, 2012, defendants Pfizer Inc., Wyeth Pharmaceuticals Inc., and Wyeth
3
Holdings Corporation removed the action to this Court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. The Notice
4
of Removal asserts that McKesson was fraudulently joined because plaintiffs’ state law claims against
5
McKesson are preempted under PLIVA, Inc. v. Mensing, 131 S. Ct. 2567 (2011).
On July 11, 2012, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation issued a Conditional Transfer
7
Order conditionally transferring this case to the MDL proceeding pending before Judge Harvey Bartle,
8
III, in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, In re Diet Drugs (Phentermine/Fenfluramine
9
/Dexfenfluramine) Products Liab. Litig., MDL No. 1203. See Sims Decl., Ex. C. Plaintiffs have filed
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
6
a notice of opposition to the conditional transfer order, id., Ex. D, and that matter will be addressed by
11
the Panel during its session on September 20, 2012. Docket No. 17, Ex. 5. Presently before this Court
12
are defendants’ motion to stay the action pending its transfer to the MDL proceeding and plaintiffs’
13
motion for remand to state court.
14
The Court’s power to stay proceedings is “incidental to the power inherent in every court to
15
control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel,
16
and for litigants.” Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). The Court finds that a stay
17
is in the interest of judicial economy and consistency because Judge Bartle can address the fraudulent
18
joinder and preemption issues in a uniform manner. Other MDL courts have addressed the issue of
19
Mensing preemption and fraudulent joinder, see, e.g., In re Fosamax (Alendronate Sodium) Prods. Liab.
20
Litig. (No. II), MDL No. 2243, 2012 WL 181411 (N.D.J. Jan. 17, 2012); In re Accutane Products
21
Liability, MDL No. 1626–IBD, No. 8:04–MD–2523–T–30TBM, 8:10–CV–987–T–30TBM (Plevniak),
22
2011 WL 6224546, (M.D. Fla. Nov. 9, 2011), and the Court finds it likely that these issues will arise
23
in other cases transferred to MDL No. 1203. The MDL No. 1203 court has substantial experience ruling
24
on the fraudulent joinder of non-diverse defendants,1 and Judge Bartle has stated that coordinating those
25
26
27
28
1
See, e.g., In re Diet Drugs (Phentermine/Fenfluramine/Dexfenfluramine), MDL No. 1203,
2004 WL 2624851 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 18, 2004);
In re Diet Drugs
(Phentermine/Fenfluramine/Dexfenfluramine), MDL No. 1203, 2004 WL 1824357 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 12,
2004); In re Diet Drugs (Phentermine/Fenfluramine/Dexfenfluramine), 352 F. Supp. 2d 533 (E.D. Pa.
2004).
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
issues in MDL No. 1203 serves judicial economy and consistency:
[R]ecurrent 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 have
now developed a broader perspective than is usually available to individual transferor
courts in dealing with widespread efforts fraudulently to join Phentermine
manufacturers as a tactic to thwart removal of cases to the federal courts. Likewise,
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.
7
In re Diet Drugs (Phentermine/Fenfluramine/Dexfenfluramine), MDL No. 1203, 2003 WL 22341307,
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
at *4 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 18, 2003) (footnote omitted).
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS defendants’ motion to stay this
action, Docket Nos. 7 & 9, and DEFERS ruling on plaintiff’s motion for remand. Docket No. 6.
12
13
IT IS SO ORDERED.
14
15
Dated: August 20, 2012
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
