Belinda v. Bristol-Myers Squib Company et al, No. 4:2012cv05941 - Document 15 (N.D. Cal. 2013)
Court Description: ORDER STAYING CASE PENDING DECISION BY JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTI-DISTRICT LITIGATION. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 1/22/2013. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/22/2013)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 JOHN BELINDA, et al., Plaintiffs, 7 8 9 10 vs. Case No.: 12-CV-5941 YGR ORDER STAYING LITIGATION PENDING DECISION BY JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, MCKESSON CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. United States District Court Northern District of California 11 In its opposition to the pending Motion for Remand filed by Plaintiffs on December 19, 12 2012, Defendant Bristol-Myers Squibb Company ( BMS ) argues that the hearing and decision on 13 the motion should be stayed until BMS s pending motion for coordination before the Judicial Panel 14 on Multi-District Litigation ( JPML ) is heard and decided. (Dkt. No. 12 at 4-5.) BMS represents 15 that the motion is currently set for hearing on January 31, 2013. In their reply, Plaintiffs do not 16 address the request for stay. (Dkt. No. 13.) 17 The Court finds that a stay is warranted. There is a reasonable likelihood that the issues 18 concerning federal jurisdiction have arisen or will arise in other Plavix-related cases filed in other 19 district courts. Considerations of judicial economy and avoidance of inconsistent rulings both favor 20 staying the litigation until the coordination motion is decided. Moreover, Plaintiffs are not likely to 21 be prejudiced by any delay resulting from a brief stay. 22 Accordingly, the Court hereby STAYS the litigation in the above-referenced action pending 23 a decision by the MDL Judicial Panel on the motion to transfer and consolidate. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 26 27 28 Date: January 22, 2013 _______________________________________ YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
