Free Case Transferred In - District Transfer - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:05-cv—OO914-JJF Document 21-24 Filed O1/12/2006 Page1 of 3

Case 1:05-cv-00914-JJF Document 21-24 Filed O1/12/2006 Page 2 of 3 -
14 of 49 DOCUMENTS e _
RALPH SCOTT VERSUS BAYER CORPORATION, ET AL.
CIVIL ACTION NUMBER 03-2888 SECTION "L" (2)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF
- i LOUISIANA
2004 ILS. Dist. LEXIS 371
January 12, 2004, Decided
January 12, 2004, Filed; January 13, 2004, Entered ‘ _
_ PRIOR HISTORY: In re PhenytQvropanolamz'ne Prods. OPINIONBY: Eldon E. Fallon
Liab. Lirig., 2003 US. Dist. LEXIS 22530 (WD. Wash.,
Nov. 5, 2003) OPINION: [*2]
DISPOSITION: [*1] nereademv Metres ter rempee ORDER & REASONS
rary Stay of Proceedings Pending Final Ruling of Judi- Before the Court are (1) the Plaintiffs `Motion to
cial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation GRANTED. Remand and Request for Costs and Expenses Under 28
USC. § 1447 and (2) the Defendants Motion for Expe-
LexisNexis(R) Headnotes dited Hearing of its Motion for a Temporary Stay of Pro-
` ceedings Pending Final Ruling of the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation on Transfer of this Case to MDL-
COUNSEL: For RALPH SCOTT, plaintiff? Stuart Hou- 1407. The Defendants' Motion for Expedited Hearing of
sel Smith, Michael G. Stag, Raphael Juneau, Jr., Smith& their Motion for a Temporary Stay of Proceedings is
Stag, LLC, Barry James Cooper, Jr., Cooper Law Firm, GRANTED. The Motion for a Temporary Stay of Pro-
LLC, New Orleans, LA. ceedings will be considered at this time. For reasons set
forth below, the defndants' Motion for Temporary Stay
For BAYER CORPORATION, defendant: John Francis of Proceedings is GRANTED. Accordingly, the Plain-
Olinde, Charles P. Blanchard, Mary Laura Meyer, tiffs Motion to Remand of this case to 29th Judicial Dis-
Chaffe, McCall, Phillips, Toler & Sarpy, LLP, New Or- trict for the Parish of St. Charles is STAYED pending
leans, LA. final ruling of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litiga-
. tion on transfer of this case to MDL-1407.
For WALGREEN LOUISIANA CO., INC. dba Wal-
greens, K&B OF LOUISLANA CORPORATION, de- I. BACKGROUND
fendants: T. Haller Jackson, III, Lemle & Kelleher, .
Shreveport LA- The present cse rs- one of more than one thousand
’ personal mjury actions mvolvmg products manufactured
For wrsrrr defendant: Edward J. Rice re Tyson B. gd 50;% ty ==¤¤t¤i¤§h=yy1¤I¤g¤¤¤]¤m¤ <"PPA">&*‘g¤
’ ’ ’ ainti as asserte c aims or amages cause
Shofstam Adams & Rags; New OrlclmS’ LA' products manufactured and sold by pharmaceuticayl
manufacturers [*3] Bayer Corporation, Wyeth, ffkfa
5;: FIOVARTIS CONSUMER.HEALTH’ INC" .dJfcn- American Home Products f/k/a Whitehall Robbins
t. Joy Goldberg Braun, Eric R. Nowak, Shrrm E. H H H .
Harrell, Sessions, Fishman ee Nathan, np, New Or- calms < Wyeth >· as Nmms C¤¤S¤m Hem
leans LA. Inc., and against the retailers/sellers of the drug Wal-
’ . green Louisiana Co., K&B Louisiana Corporation,
For WDWDIXIE LOUISIANA, INC-, defendant; Paul Wirm-Dixie Louisiana, Inc., and Eckerd Corporation.
M. Lavelle, Landry & Lavelle, L.L.P., New Orleans, LA. Defendant Wyeth removed this action to the United
States District Court for the Eastem District of Louisiana
JUDGES: Eldon E. Fallon, United States District Judge. on October 15, 2003, claiming that the Plaintiff fraudu-
lently joined the Louisiana-based retailer/seller defen-

Case 1 :05-cv-00914-JJF Document 21-24 Filed O1/12/2006 Page 3 of 3
i Page 2
2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 371, *
dants solely for the purpose of destroying diversity. The in litigation that underlies the multidistrict litigation sys-
Plaintiff responds that the retail sellers and distributors tem. Sec 28 USC § 1407.
§ZZ’§..§§“`§'it bfiitilisf `i?’p§°Z“i.dh`i£a°lE§Qt$1°5iZ(iIQZi§ The shitty Fs Say Pr Ocsc dine scidcsel is the .
caused him to have a stroke. The Plaintiff moves the power mhmcm Every com to comml thgdlspgsmml
. . . ofthe cases on its docket with economy of time and ef-
Court to remand the matter to the Twenty-ninth Judicial . * . . ,,
District com fs. at psa. of S. Charles due to E. sa for for melt for ¤¤¤¤rl» and fe [ 51 ta h¤g¤¤*S-
Ofcomplctc diversity ` Landis v. North American C0., 299 US. 248, 254, 81 L.
' Ed. 153, 57 S. Cz. I63 (1936). The Plaintiff will not be
The Defendants urge the Cotut to grant a temporary unduly prejudiced if proceedings in this Court, including
stay of the case pending a ruling of the Judicial Panel on hearing of the Plaintiffs Motion to Remand, are stayed
Multidistrict Litigation and refrain from ruling on the pending a decision by the panel as to the transferability
Plaintiffs Motion to Rernand at this time. The Defen- of this case. In addition, staying all proceedings in this
dants state that on November ll, 2003, this matter was case will serve the interests of judicial economy and `
submitted [*4] to the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict minimize the risk of inconsistent rulings in related cases.
Litigation as a "tag-along" action. The Judicial Panel has The Court will exercise its discretion and stay all pro-
yet to rule on whether or not to transfer this case to the ceedings in this case pending a decision on the transfer
MDL court. ofthe case to the MDL court.
II. LAW AND ANALYSIS _ IH. CONCLUSION
The decision to grant or deny a temporary stay of For the foregoing reasons, the Defendants‘ Motion
proceedings pending a ruling on the transfer of the matter for Temporary Stay of Proceedings Pending Final Ruling
to the MDL court lies within this Court's discretion. It is of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Trans-
advisable, however, for a district court to defer the reso- fer of this Case to MDL-1407 is GRANTED. Accord-
lution of certain pretrial matters until the Panel renders a ingly, all proceedings in this case are STAYED pending
decision with regard to whether a case should be trans- notification by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litiga-
ferred to the MDL court. See Manual for Complex Liti- tion of its decision.
gation § 31.131, at 252 (3d ed. 2000) ("It may be advis-
able to defer certain matters until the panel has the op- New Orleans, Louisiana, this 12 day of January, 2004.
portunity to rule on transfer"). Deference to the MDL E1dOnE Fallon
court for resolution of these matters provides the oppor- ‘
tunity for the uniformity, consistency, and predictability United States District Judge