Thomas v. Mead Johnson & Company, LLC

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: June 27, 2022
• Docket: 4:22-cv-02460
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 TRISHA THOMAS, et al., Case No. 22-cv-02460-HSG 8 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO STAY 9 v. Re: Dkt. No. 14 10 MEAD JOHNSON & COMPANY, LLC, et al., 11 Defendants. 12 ALYSSA ROESLER, et al., 13 Case No. 22-cv-02480-HSG Plaintiffs, 14 v. Re: Dkt. No. 16 15 MEAD JOHNSON & COMPANY, LLC, et 16 al., 17 Defendants. 18 KAMI HARTWICK, et al., Case No. 22-cv-02598-HSG 19 Plaintiffs, 20 v. Re: Dkt. No. 6 21 MEAD JOHNSON & COMPANY, LLC, et al., 22 Defendants. 23 24 25 Pending before the Court are motions to stay in these three related cases. The Court finds 26 these matters appropriate for disposition without oral argument and the matters are deemed 27 submitted. See Civil L.R. 7-1(b). For the reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS the 1 These related cases are three of several federal lawsuits filed against Abbott Laboratories 2 relating to its preterm nutrition products. Many of these lawsuits have already been transferred to 3 In re: Abbott Laboratories, et al. Preterm Infant Nutrition Product Liability Litigation, MDL No. 4 3026 (N.D. Ill.) (the “MDL”). Defendant Abbott Laboratories therefore asks the Court to stay 5 these cases pending determination by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML”) 6 whether to centralize these cases in the MDL. A conditional transfer order has been filed for all 7 three cases. See MDL No. 3026, Dkt. Nos. 129, 137. Defendant urges that a stay will preserve 8 judicial resources, minimize the risk of inconsistent decisions on the same pretrial issues, and 9 avoid burdening the parties with duplicative proceedings, all without risk of prejudice to the 10 parties. 11 Plaintiffs, in turn, argue that the Court should instead grant their respective motions to 12 remand because removal to federal court was improper. Defendant removed on the basis of 13 diversity jurisdiction, arguing that the California hospital defendants in each of these cases are 14 fraudulently joined. But Plaintiffs contend that there is no merit to this argument, and that 15 Defendant’s removal and motions to stay are just gamesmanship intended to “delay the inevitable 16 return to California state court.” See Thomas, Dkt. No. 18 at 2. In opposing the conditional 17 transfer order in the MDL, Plaintiffs raised these same arguments. See MDL No. 3026, Dkt. No. 18 179, 188. Other plaintiffs appear to have raised the same arguments in objection to the conditional 19 transfer orders in the MDL. See, e.g., id., Dkt. No. 258. The JPML has scheduled these matters 20 for consideration at its July 28, 2022 hearing session. See id., Dkt. No. 231. 21 A district court’s “power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every 22 court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for 23 itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). Using this 24 power, a case may be stayed pending the resolution of independent judicial proceedings that bear 25 upon the case. Leyva v. Certified Grocers of Cal., Ltd., 593 F.2d 857, 863-64 (9th Cir. 1997). 26 When considering whether a stay is warranted, courts consider: (1) “the possible damage which 27 may result from the granting of a stay”; (2) “the hardship or inequity which a party may suffer in 1 simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law which could be expected to 2 result from a stay.” CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962) (citing Landis, 299 3 U.S. at 254–55); see also Lyon v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., No. 19-CV-05270-PJH, 2019 WL 4 4933586, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 7, 2019) (applying factors in context of stay pending JPML 5 transfer). Additionally, “[c]ourts in this district also recognize that, when faced with a motion to 6 remand, deference to the MDL court for resolution of that motion often provides the opportunity 7 for the uniformity, consistency, and predictability in litigation that underlies the MDL system.” 8 See Lyon, 2019 WL 4933586, at *2 (quotation omitted). 9 The Court finds that a temporary stay of proceedings is warranted under these 10 circumstances. A stay would preserve judicial resources and enable the court handling the MDL 11 to resolve questions of jurisdiction in a uniform manner. To the extent Plaintiffs suggest that this 12 Court is better equipped to resolve the motions to remand based on California law, Dkt. No. 18 at 13 8–10, the Court is not persuaded. The MDL Court is undoubtedly capable of applying both 14 federal and California state law, particularly in light of the fact that there are already several cases 15 in the MDL that were transferred out of the Northern District of California, including Thomas v. 16 Abbott Laboratories Inc., 22-cv-02971-JCS, Andrade v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., 22-cv-02780- 17 EJD, and Smith v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., 22-cv-02794-NC. 18 But more importantly, there does not appear to be any risk of harm or prejudice to any 19 party or third party. Given that the JPML intends to consider whether to transfer these cases on 20 July 28, the stay will be temporary and limited in duration. If these cases are not transferred to the 21 MDL, Plaintiffs may promptly re-notice their motions to remand before this Court. And if the 22 cases are transferred, Plaintiffs may raise their motions to remand with the MDL court. Because 23 the motions to remand are already fully briefed, the resources required for Plaintiffs to refile the 24 motions before the MDL court are minimal. Plaintiffs nevertheless suggest that it may take time 25 for the MDL court to decide the motions to remand. See, e.g., Thomas, Dkt. No. 18 at 6–7 (noting 26 that some MDL courts have taken months to decide a motion to remand). But even assuming this 27 is true, Plaintiffs fail to explain how they will be prejudiced by this delay, other than broadly 1 own to establish that they may be harmed from a stay in this case. 2 The Court therefore GRANTS the motions to stay. See Thomas v. Mead Johnson & 3 Company, LLC, 22-cv-02460-HSG, Dkt. No. 14; Tracy v. Mead Johnson & Company, LLC, 22-cv- 4 02480-HSG, Dkt. No. 16; Hartwick v. Mead Johnson & Company, LLC, 22-cv-02598-HSG, Dkt. 5 No. 6. The Court STAYS all proceedings and deadlines in these three related cases for 60 days, or 6 || until the JPML renders a final order regarding the transfer of this action to the United States 7 District Court for the Northern District of Illinois for inclusion and coordination with In re: Abbott 8 Laboratories, et al. Preterm Infant Nutrition Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 3026, 9 whichever is earlier. 10 The Court HOLDS IN ABEYANCE Plaintiffs’ motions to remand and Defendants’ 11 motions to dismiss, motions to strike, and motions to compel arbitration. See Thomas v. Mead 12 Johnson & Company, LLC, 22-cv-02460-HSG, Dkt. Nos. 11, 24; Tracy v. Mead Johnson & 5 13 Company, LLC, 22-cv-02480-HSG, Dkt. Nos. 14, 24; Hartwick v. Mead Johnson & Company, 14 || LLC, 22-cv-02598-HSG, Dkt. Nos. 10, 17, 18. Any upcoming hearing dates on these motions are 3 15 || thus VACATED. The parties’ motions to advance the briefing schedule and hearings on the a 16 || motions are TERMINATED AS MOOT. See Thomas v. Mead Johnson & Company, LLC, 22- 3 17 cv-02460-HSG, Dkt. No. 28; Hartwick v. Mead Johnson & Company, LLC, 22-cv-02598-HSG, || vewno.19. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 || Dated: 6/27/2022 21 Aspe 5 Mb HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. 22 United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28