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

Case 1:05-cv—OO914-JJF Document 21-23 Filed O1/12/2006 Page 1 013

’ 1

Case 1:05-cv-00914-JJF Document 21-23 Filed O1/12/2006 Page 2 of 3
· » 1
Slip Copy - Page 1 1
Slip Copy, 2005 WL 1630034 (W.D.Tenn.)
(Cite as: 2005 WL 1630034 (W.D.Tenn.)) ( _
to remand the action to state court on July 5, 2005. -
Motions, Pleadings and Filings
‘ The MDL Panel issued the first Transfer Order ,
Only the Westlaw citation is currently available. establishing MDL-1657 on February 16, 2005. In Q
that order, the Panel stated:
The pendency of a motion to remand to state
United States District Court, court is not a sufficient basis to avoid inclusion in
W.D. Tennessee, Eastem Division. Section 1407 proceedings. We note that motions
Denny E. WEST, Plaintiff, to remand in two actions, one action each in the
v. District of Kansas and the Eastern District of
MERCK&CO., INC., etal., Defendants. Missouri, as well as in any other MDL-1657
No. 05-1166-T/AN. actions can be presented to and decided by the
transferee judge. See, eg., In re Irgv, 901 F.2d 7 1
July 7,2005. (2d Cir.l990); In re Prudential Insurance
Steven G. Ohrvall, Hill Boren, Jackson, TN, for Company of America Sales Practices Litigation,
Plaintiff 170 F.Supp.2d 1346, 1347-48 (.I.P.M.L.2001).
Transfer Order, at 2 (J.P.M.L. Feb. 16, 2005). p
Charles C. Harrell, Butler Snow O'Mara Stevens & 1
Canada, PLLC, Memphis, TN, for Defendants. The peudency of transfer to the MDL proceeding _
does not limit the authority of this Court to rule on ·
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STAY the plaintiffs motion to remand. See JPML R. 1.5.
The decision whether to grant a stay is within the
TODD, J. inherent power of the Court and is discretionary. See
Landis v. North Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55, 57
*1 Plaintiff Denny E. West filed this action in the S.Ct. 163, 81 L.Ed. 153 (1936). Although some ,
Circuit Court of Madison County, Tennessee, on courts have opted to rule on pending motions to
May 18, 2005, against Merck and Company, Inc., remand prior to the MDL Panel‘s decision on g
maker of the prescription drug known as Vioxx. transfer, see, eg., Kanmer v. Merck & Co., Inc.,
Plaintiff also named as defendants certain local No. 1:04CV2044—JDT-TAB, 2005 WL 277688
Merck sales representatives and pharmacists. Merck (S.D.Ind. Jan.26, 2005), there are many more that 1
_ removed the action to this Court on June 17, 2005, have chosen to grant a stay, even if a motion to 1
on the basis of diversity of citizenship, contending remand has been filed. Eg., Anderson v. Merck &
that the non—diverse defendants were fraudulently Co., Inc., No. 4:05-cv-89 (E.D.Mo. Mar. 16, 2005);
joinedinanattempt to defeat diversity jurisdiction. McCrerey v. Merck & Co., Inc., No. 04-cv-2576
(S.D.Cal. Mar. 2, 2005); Dixon v. Merck & Co.,
Also on June 17, 2005, Merck filed a motion to Inc., No. 05-0121 (S.D.Tex. Feb. 23,2005).
stay all further proceedings pending a decision by Q
the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation There are several other Vioxx cases already
("MDL Panel") on whether this case should be pending in this district, and possibly thousands 1
transferred to the United States District Court for more in other districts. In many of those cases, the
the Eastern District of Louisiana as a "tag-along" joiuder of -non—diverse defendants is contested and
action in MDL Proceeding No. 1657, In re Worx motions to remand have been or will be tiled. Thus, ‘
Product Liability Litigation. Plaintiff tiled a motion the jurisdictional issues raised in this case are ¥
- © 2005 ThomsonfW est. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
1
` 1
1
1

Case 1 :05-cv—OO914-JJF Document 21-23 Filed O1/12/2006 Page 3 of 3
‘ E
Slip Copy Page 2- 1
Slip Copy, 2005 WL 1630034 (W.D.Tenn.)
(Cite as: 2005 WL 1630034 (W.D.Tenn.)) U .
_ similar to those raised in other cases that have been
or will be transferred to the MDL proceeding. - l
The Court finds that having the jurisdictional issues
decided in one proceeding will promote judicial · .
economy and conserve judicial resources. In ‘
addition, the Court finds that any prejudice to the l
plaintiff resulting from a stay would be minimal. » _ - V
However, in the absence of a stay, the risk to Merck i
of duplicative motions and discovery is significant. ·
l *2 For the foregoing reasons, Merck's motion to I l
stay pending the MDL Panel's transfer decision is
` GRANTED. The motion to remand is deferred to j
the transferee court. E
IT IS SO ORDERED. a
Slip Copy, 2005 WL 1630034 (W .D.Tenn.) `
Motions, Pleadings and Filings (Back to top) l _
I
· 1:05cv01l66 (Docket)
(Jun. 17, 2005)
END OF DOCUMENT _
© 2005 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. I