Leonard v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc.

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: May 1, 2025
• Docket: 5:24-cv-06280
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 7 CHERI LEONARD, Case No. 5:24-cv-06280-EJD

8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY PENDING 9 v. MOTION TO DISMISS

10 CVS PHARMACY, INC., et al., Re: Dkt. No. 50 Defendants. 11

12 Defendants CVS Pharmacy, Inc. (“CVS”), Amneal Pharmaceuticals of New York, LLC, 13 and Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC (collectively, “Amneal”) (all together, “Defendants”) move to 14 stay discovery pending resolution of their motion to dismiss (“MTD”). Mot. to Stay, ECF No. 50; 15 MTD, ECF No. 47. Plaintiff Cheri Leonard (“Plaintiff”) filed an opposition, and Defendants filed 16 a reply. Opp’n, ECF No. 52; Reply, ECF No. 55. 17 Upon careful review of the relevant documents, the Court finds this matter suitable for 18 decision without oral argument pursuant to Local Rule 7-9(b). For the reasons explained below, 19 the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to stay discovery pending resolution of the MTD. 20 I. BACKGROUND 21 Plaintiff brings five causes of action alleging that Defendants misbranded, contaminated, 22 and illegally sold over-the-counter guaifenesin products: (1) breach of the implied warranty of 23 merchantability, (2) unjust enrichment, (3) fraud, (4) a violation of California’s Consumer Legal 24 Remedies Act, and (5) a violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law. First Am. Compl. 25 (“FAC”), ECF No. 33. On February 4, 2025, the Court entered a Case Management Order, in 26 which it issued a case schedule including discovery deadlines. Order, ECF No. 44. Around two 27 weeks later, Defendants filed the MTD and present motion to stay discovery. The MTD seeks 1 dismissal of all claims due to lack of personal jurisdiction, preemption, failure to state a claim 2 under Rule 12(b)(6), and lack of standing. The MTD is set for hearing on June 12, 2025. 3 II. LEGAL STANDARD 4 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) provides that a court may, “for good cause, issue an 5 order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or 6 expense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1). Although a district court has the discretion to stay discovery 7 for good cause, id., the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “do not provide for automatic or blanket 8 stays of discovery when a potentially dispositive motion is pending.” Tradebay, LLC v. eBay, 9 Inc., 278 F.R.D. 597, 600 (D. Nev. 2011). 10 “Courts in this district have applied a two-pronged test to determine whether discovery 11 should be stayed pending resolution of a dispositive motion.” Reveal Chat Holdco, LLC v. 12 Facebook, Inc., 2020 WL 2843369, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 10, 2020) (collecting cases). “First, a 13 pending motion must be potentially dispositive of the entire case, or at least dispositive on the 14 issue at which discovery is directed. 1 Second, the court must determine whether the pending 15 dispositive motion can be decided absent additional discovery.” Pac. Lumber Co. v. Nat'l Union 16 Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, 220 F.R.D. 349, 352 (N.D. Cal. 2003). A court may determine 17 that staying discovery pending a ruling on a dispositive motion is warranted “when dispositive 18 motions raise issues of jurisdiction, venue, or immunity.” Tradebay, 278 F.R.D. at 601. 19 III. DISCUSSION 20 The Court finds Defendants have satisfied both Pacific Lumber factors. On the first factor, 21 Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss, raising arguments regarding personal jurisdiction over 22 Amneal, preemption, failure to state any claim under Rule 12(b)(6), and standing. ECF No. 47. If 23 the Court grants Defendants’ motion in its entirety, it will dispose of all claims. This is sufficient 24

25 1 Plaintiff contends that the Court must also be “convinced that the plaintiff will be unable to state a claim for relief.” Opp’n at 2 (citing Twin City Fire Ins. Co. v. Employers Ins. of Wausau, 124 26 F.R.D. 652, 653 (D. Nev. 1989)). This is a misunderstanding of the standard. As Defendants highlight, Twin City was decided over a decade prior to Pacific Lumber and quotes Wood v. 27 McEwen, 644 F.2d 797, 799–800 (9th Cir. 1981), which addressed a different issue regarding whether to continue an existing stay while the plaintiff moved to file several amended complaints. 1 to meet the first factor. The Court finds Plaintiff's arguments to the contrary unpersuasive. 2 || Plaintiff primarily contends that Defendant has not met this factor because the MTD is unlikely to 3 succeed, but likelihood of success is not the standard for a stay of discovery. Plaintiff also argues 4 || that, if granted, Defendant’s motion would not be dispositive of the entire case because 5 || Defendants’ personal jurisdiction arguments pertain only to Amneal, and Plaintiffs claim under 6 California’s Sherman Law is shielded from preemption. However, even if true, Plaintiff neglects 7 to address the remaining arguments that would dispose of the entire case, i.e., arguments that the 8 FAC fails to state any claim under Rule 12(b)(6), and arguments that Plaintiff lacks a cognizable 9 || injury to establish standing. 10 Regarding the second Pacific Lumber factor, the Court finds no discovery is needed to 11 decide the pending MTD. Plaintiff concedes that the MTD can be resolved without discovery, but 12 argues that, if the Court grants the motion as to personal jurisdiction, she may need discovery into 13 || the jurisdictional issues to bolster the amended complaint. However, the utility of the discovery 14 || later in litigation is not relevant to the Court’s present analysis, and Plaintiff has not identified any 3 15 controverted facts bearing on the question of jurisdiction at this time. See Boschetto v. Hansing, a 16 539 F.3d 1011, 1020 (9th Cir. 2008) (finding that “little more than a hunch that [discovery] might 3 17 || yield jurisdictionally relevant facts” is not enough to warrant jurisdictional discovery). 18 Because the MTD may potentially dispose of the entire case and resolution of the MTD 19 does not require any further discovery at this time, the Court finds that there is good cause to stay 20 || discovery pending the resolution of the MTD. 21 || IV. CONCLUSION 22 Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to stay discovery 23 pending resolution of the MTD. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 Dated: May 1, 2025

EDWARD J. DAVILA 27 United States District Judge 28 || Case No.: 5:24-cv-06280-EJD ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY PENDING MOTION TO DISMISS