Now before the Court is Defendant Bristol-Myers Squibb's
("BMS") motion to stay these proceedings pending transfer of this 19 action to the Plavix MDL, ECF No. 9 ("MTS"), and Plaintiffs' motion 20 to remand, ECF No. 13 ("MTR"). There is also a pending motion to 21 relate the instant action to Caouette v. Bristol-Myers Squibb 22
Company, Case No. 12-cv-01814-ECM (the "Caouette Action"), which is 23 currently pending before Judge Chen in this District. Caouette 24
Action Dkt. No. 75. The motion to stay is fully briefed, ECF Nos. 25
14 ("Opp'n"), 16 ("Reply"), and appropriate for determination 26 without oral argument, Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). For the reasons set forth 27 below, the Court stays this matter, including its consideration of 28
Plaintiffs' motion to remand, pending a determination on whether the case should be transferred to the Plavix MDL or related to the
4 consider the following: 5 aspect of it, and the potential prejudice to plaintiffs of a delay; (2) the burden which any particular aspect of the proceedings may impose on defendants; (3) the convenience of the court in the management of its cases, and the efficient use of judicial resources; (4) the interests of persons not parties to the civil litigation; and (5) the interest of the public in the pending civil and criminal litigation.
Keating v. Office of Thrift Supervision, 45 F.3d 322, 325 (9th Cir. 12
The Court finds that these factors favor staying this action.
A stay would not prejudice Plaintiffs because it will likely be 15 short and Plaintiffs' motion to remand could also be heard by Judge 16
Chen or as part of the Plavix MDL. BMS would not be burdened 17 because it is moving for the stay. Staying the case would promote 18 judicial economy and uniform decision-making since the motion to 19 remand filed in this case raises jurisdictional issues identical to 20 those raised in a number of other cases filed against BMS in this District. All of these cases might be related before Judge Chen or 22 transferred to the Plavix MDL, where they can be decided in a 23 consistent and efficient manner. Finally, a stay would not be 24 inconsistent with the interests of non-parties or the general 25 public. This reasoning is consistent with recent decisions by 26
District, granting motions to stay pending determination of whether 28 other cases filed against BMS should be transferred to the Plavix
In determining whether a stay is appropriate, the Court is to
(1) the interest of the plaintiffs in proceeding expeditiously with this litigation or any particular United States District Court For the ...