Grubensky v. Pfizer Inc.

N.D. California

Grubensky v. Pfizer Inc.

DecidedJanuary 2, 2025

Docket4:24-cv-08746

StatusUnknown

This text of Grubensky v. Pfizer Inc. (Grubensky v. Pfizer Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Grubensky v. Pfizer Inc., (N.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JAMIE GRUBENSKY, Case No. 4:24-cv-8746-HSG 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING JOINT 13 v. STIPULATION TO STAY ACTION 14 PFIZER INC., VIATRIS INC., GREENSTONE LLC, PRASCOLABS, PHARMACIA & 15 UPJOHN; and DOES 1 through 50, Inclusive, 16 Defendants. 17 Complaint Filed: December 4, 2024 Trial Date: None set 18 19 20 Before the Court is the stipulation of Jamie Grubensky (“Plaintiff”) and Defendants Pfizer 21 Inc., Pharmacia & Upjohn Company LLC, Prasco, LLC d/b/a Prasco Laboratories, Viatris Inc., 22 and Greenstone LLC (“Defendants”), to stay this action. 23 On November 26, 2024, certain plaintiffs filed a petition with the Judicial Panel on 24 Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML”) to centralize this and other cases in which plaintiffs allege 25 personal injuries relating to the use of Depo-Provera, into a Multidistrict Litigation (“MDL”) (the 26 “Petition”). The JPML has set the Petition for a hearing on January 30, 2025, and is expected to 27 decide the Petition in early February 2025. The parties seek a stay of this case through March 7, 28 2025, or until the Petition is decided, whichever is sooner. Courts routinely find good cause to 1 || stay a case during the pendency of a JPML petition. E.g., E.g., Schmidt v. Pfizer Inc, et al., No. 2 || 3:24-cv-06875-JC (N.D. Cal.), ECF No. 53; A.H.M. v. Uber Techs., Inc., No. 23-cv-03482-JSC, 3 || 2023 WL 6199179 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 22, 2023); Hulsh v. Bayer Healthcare Pharms. Inc., No. 15- 4 || cv-04801-JST, 2016 WL 7168398 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 11, 2016); Lyon v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., 5 || No. 19-cv-05270-PJH, 2019 WL 4933586 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 7, 2019); Good v. Prudential Ins. Co. 6 || of America, 5 F. Supp. 2d 804, 809 (N.D. Cal. 1998) (“Courts frequently grant stays pending a 7 || decision by the MDL Panel regarding whether to transfer a case.”). 8 Accordingly, the Court finds good cause for the stipulation and hereby GRANTS the 9 || stipulation. This action shall be stayed through March 7, 2025, or until the JPML decides the 10 || Petition, whichever is sooner. On March 7, 2025, if this action is not transferred to an MDL 11 || proceeding, the parties shall file a joint status update. If the Petition is denied, Defendants shall 12 || have through and until 21 days after the JPML rules on the anticipated JPML petition to respond 13 |] to the Complaint. 14 15 || Dated: 1/2/2025 Abespworl & Mbt). Hon. Ha¥wood S. Gilliam, Jr. 16 United States District Court Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDER TO STAY ACTION

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JAMIE GRUBENSKY, Case No. 4:24-cv-8746-HSG 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING JOINT 13 v. STIPULATION TO STAY ACTION 14 PFIZER INC., VIATRIS INC., GREENSTONE LLC, PRASCOLABS, PHARMACIA & 15 UPJOHN; and DOES 1 through 50, Inclusive, 16 Defendants. 17 Complaint Filed: December 4, 2024 Trial Date: None set 18 19 20 Before the Court is the stipulation of Jamie Grubensky (“Plaintiff”) and Defendants Pfizer 21 Inc., Pharmacia & Upjohn Company LLC, Prasco, LLC d/b/a Prasco Laboratories, Viatris Inc., 22 and Greenstone LLC (“Defendants”), to stay this action. 23 On November 26, 2024, certain plaintiffs filed a petition with the Judicial Panel on 24 Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML”) to centralize this and other cases in which plaintiffs allege 25 personal injuries relating to the use of Depo-Provera, into a Multidistrict Litigation (“MDL”) (the 26 “Petition”). The JPML has set the Petition for a hearing on January 30, 2025, and is expected to 27 decide the Petition in early February 2025. The parties seek a stay of this case through March 7, 28 2025, or until the Petition is decided, whichever is sooner. Courts routinely find good cause to 1 || stay a case during the pendency of a JPML petition. E.g., E.g., Schmidt v. Pfizer Inc, et al., No. 2 || 3:24-cv-06875-JC (N.D. Cal.), ECF No. 53; A.H.M. v. Uber Techs., Inc., No. 23-cv-03482-JSC, 3 || 2023 WL 6199179 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 22, 2023); Hulsh v. Bayer Healthcare Pharms. Inc., No. 15- 4 || cv-04801-JST, 2016 WL 7168398 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 11, 2016); Lyon v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., 5 || No. 19-cv-05270-PJH, 2019 WL 4933586 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 7, 2019); Good v. Prudential Ins. Co. 6 || of America, 5 F. Supp. 2d 804, 809 (N.D. Cal. 1998) (“Courts frequently grant stays pending a 7 || decision by the MDL Panel regarding whether to transfer a case.”). 8 Accordingly, the Court finds good cause for the stipulation and hereby GRANTS the 9 || stipulation. This action shall be stayed through March 7, 2025, or until the JPML decides the 10 || Petition, whichever is sooner. On March 7, 2025, if this action is not transferred to an MDL 11 || proceeding, the parties shall file a joint status update. If the Petition is denied, Defendants shall 12 || have through and until 21 days after the JPML rules on the anticipated JPML petition to respond 13 |] to the Complaint. 14 15 || Dated: 1/2/2025 Abespworl & Mbt). Hon. Ha¥wood S. Gilliam, Jr. 16 United States District Court Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDER TO STAY ACTION

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Grubensky v. Pfizer Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grubensky-v-pfizer-inc-cand-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack