Filed: Sep. 05, 2018
Latest Update: Sep. 05, 2018
Summary: STIPULATION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS PENDING TRANSFER TO THE ABILIFY MDL; [PROPOSED] ORDER JON S. TIGAR , District Judge . Defendants Bristol-Myers Squibb Company ("BMS"), Otsuka America Pharmaceutical, Inc. ("OAPI"), and McKesson Corporation ("McKesson") (collectively, "Defendants"), and the above-captioned Plaintiffs ("Plaintiffs") (collectively, the "Parties"), by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby stipulate and agree to, and respectfully request that the Court enter an orde
Summary: STIPULATION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS PENDING TRANSFER TO THE ABILIFY MDL; [PROPOSED] ORDER JON S. TIGAR , District Judge . Defendants Bristol-Myers Squibb Company ("BMS"), Otsuka America Pharmaceutical, Inc. ("OAPI"), and McKesson Corporation ("McKesson") (collectively, "Defendants"), and the above-captioned Plaintiffs ("Plaintiffs") (collectively, the "Parties"), by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby stipulate and agree to, and respectfully request that the Court enter an order..
More
STIPULATION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS PENDING TRANSFER TO THE ABILIFY® MDL; [PROPOSED] ORDER
JON S. TIGAR, District Judge.
Defendants Bristol-Myers Squibb Company ("BMS"), Otsuka America Pharmaceutical, Inc. ("OAPI"), and McKesson Corporation ("McKesson") (collectively, "Defendants"), and the above-captioned Plaintiffs ("Plaintiffs") (collectively, the "Parties"), by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby stipulate and agree to, and respectfully request that the Court enter an order establishing the following:
WHEREAS, on August 10, 2018, Plaintiffs filed their Complaint in the Superior Court of California in and for San Francisco County,
WHEREAS, on August 15, 2018, BMS removed this case from the Superior Court of the State of California in and for San Francisco County to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
WHEREAS, no Defendant has filed an Answer or other responsive pleading,
WHEREAS, on August 17, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand (ECF No. 4),
WHEREAS, on August 21, 2018, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the "JPML") entered Conditional Transfer Order ("CTO")-23, conditionally transferring this case to MDL-2734, In re Abilify (Aripiprazole) Products Liability Litigation, No. 3:16-md-2734-MCR-GRJ (N.D. Fla.) (the "Abilify MDL"),
WHEREAS, Plaintiffs agree to not oppose transfer of this case to the Abilify MDL and to withdraw any pending oppositions thereto,
WHEREAS, the Parties agree to defer all briefing and argument on Plaintiffs' motion to remand pending transfer to the Abilify MDL,
WHEREAS, Plaintiffs agree to withdraw, without prejudice, their pending motion to remand (ECF No. 4),
WHEREAS, the Parties agree to stay all proceedings in this Court pending transfer to the Abilify MDL,
WHEREAS, the Court has the inherent power to stay its proceedings,
WHEREAS, Defendants contend that courts in the Northern District of California and elsewhere have determined that a stay pending transfer to the Abilify MDL is of limited duration causing little or no prejudice, uses party and judicial resources efficiently, and promotes uniformity, consistency, and predictability in litigation (see Order ECF No. 16, Rollo v. Bristol-Myers Squibb, Co., No. 4:18-cv-2577-HSG (N.D. Cal. May 15, 2018); Pamintuan v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., No. 16-cv-00254-HSG, 2016 WL 4319844 (N.D. Cal. July 14, 2016) (Gilliam, J.); Order, ECF No. 60, Ginsberg v. Bristol Myers Squibb Co., No. 1:17-cv-11606-WGY (D. Mass. Sept. 26, 2017); Order, ECF No. 13, Stiggle v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., No. 3:17-cv-01387-JAM (D. Conn. Sept. 5, 2017)),
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED
1. The proceedings in this action will be stayed pending the JPML's transfer order;
2. Plaintiffs' motion to remand (ECF No. 4) is withdrawn without prejudice;
3. Plaintiffs will withdraw their opposition to CTO-23;
4. In opposing any motion to remand filed in this case, Defendants will not raise procedural or substantive arguments regarding Plaintiffs' non-opposition to the transfer of this case to the Abilify MDL;
5. In opposing any motion to remand filed in this case, Defendants will not raise procedural or substantive arguments regarding Plaintiffs' agreement to stay these proceedings pending transfer to the Abilify MDL; and
6. Defendants' Answers or other responsive pleadings will not be due until 30 days after the JPML enters its transfer order.
IT IS SO STIPULATED AND AGREED.
I, Sharon D. Mayo, hereby attest that the concurrence to the filing of this document has been obtained from each signatory hereto.
[PROPOSED] ORDER
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.
