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

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

Case 1 :05-cv-00914-JJF Document 21-21 Filed O1/12/2006 Page 2 of 3
l I Q
Slip Copy Page 1 ‘
Slip Copy, 2005 WL 1700905 (W.D.Tenn.)
(Cite as: 2005 VVL 1700905 (W.D.Tenn.)) ·
l
2
establishing MDL-1657 on February l6, 2005. In `
Motions, Pleadings and Filings that order, the Panel stated: 1
The pendency of a motion to remand to state '
Only the Westlaw citation is cturently available. court is not a sufficient basis to avoid inclusion in
Section 1407 proceedings. We note that motions
to remand in two actions, one action each in the
United States District Court, District of Kansas and the Eastern District of
W.D. Tennessee, Eastern Division. Missouri, as well as in any other MDL-1657 E
Sylvia L. STUDARD and husband, William J. actions can be presented to and decided by the 1
Studard, Sr., Plaintiffs, transferee judge. See, e.g., In re Ivy, 901 F.2d 7 i
v. (2d Cir.1990); In re Prudential Insurance 4
MERCK & CO., INC., etal., Defendants. Company of America Sales Practices Litigation,
No. 05-1184-TIAN. 170 F.Supp.2d 1346, 1347-48 (J .P.M.L.2001).
Transfer Order, at 2 (J .P.M.L. Feb. 16, 2005).
July 19, 2005. . 2
The pendency of transfer to the MDL proceeding I
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STAY does not limit the authority of this Court to rule on p
the p1aintiffs' motion to remand. See JPML R. 1.5.
TODD, J. The decision whether to grant a stay is within the ,
inherent power of the Court and is discretionary. See
*1 Plaintiffs Sylvia L. Studard and William J. Landis v. North Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55
Studard, Sr., filed this action -in the Circuit Court of (1936). Although some coruts have opted to rule on
Crockett County, Termessee, on May 27, 2005, pending motions to remand prior to the MDL
against Merck and Company, Inc., maker of the Panel's decision on transfer, see, eg., Kantner v.
prescription drug known as Vioxx. Plaintiffs also Merck & Co., Inc., No. 1:04CV2044-JDT—TAB,
named as defendants certain local Merck sales 2005 WL 277688 (S.D.Ind. Jan. 26, 2005), there
representatives and pharmacists. Merck removed are many more that have chosen to grant a stay,
the action to this Court on July 1, 2005, on the basis even if a motion to remand has been filed. Eg.,
of diversity of citizenship, contending that the Anderson v. Merck & Co., Inc., No. 4:05-cv-89
non-diverse defendants were fraudulently joined in (E.D.Mo. Mar. 16, 2005); McCrerey v. Merck &
anattempt to defeat diversity jurisdiction. Co., Inc., No. 04—cv—2576 (S.D.Cal. Mar. 2, 2005);
Dixon v. Merck & Co., Inc., No. 05-0121 (S.D.Tex.
Also on July 1, 2005, Merck Hled a motion to stay Feb. 23, 2005).
all fiirther proceedings pending a decision by the `
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("MDL There are several other Vioxx cases already
Panel") on whether this case should be transferred pending in this district, and possibly thousands
to the United States District Court for the Eastern more in other districts. In many of those cases, the
District of Louisiana as a "tag-along" action in joinder of non-diverse defendants is contested and
MDL Proceeding No. 1657, In re Vioxx Product motions to remand have been or will be filed. Thus,
Liability Litigation. Plaintiffs filed a motion to the jurisdictional issues raised in this case are
remand the action to state court on July 15, 2005. similar to those raised in other cases that have been
or will be transferred to the MDL proceeding.
The MDL Panel issued the first Transfer Order
© 2005 Thomson/W est. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.

Case 1 :05-cv—OO914-JJF Document 21-21 Filed O1/12/2006 Page 3 of 3
Slip Copy Page 2 (
Slip COPY, 2005 WL 1700905 (W.D.Tenn.)
(Cite as: 2005 WL 1700905 (W.D.Tenn.)) _.
*2 The Court fmds 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 i
plaintiffs resulting from a stay would be minimal.
However, in the absence of a stay, the risk to Merck ·
of duplicative motions and discovery is significant. i ·
For the foregoing reasons, Merck's motion to stay =
- pending the It/[DL Panel's transfer decision is
GRANTED. The motion to remand is deferred to I s
the transferee comt. _
IT IS SO ORDERED. (
. !
Slip Copy, 2005 WL 1700905 (W.D.Tenn.) V i
Motions, Pleadings and Filings (Back to top)
‘ • 1:05cvOl184 (Docket) {
(Jul. 01, 2005) .
END OF DOCUMENT
5 l

!

1
l
© 2005 Thomson/W est. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. C
l