Huitt v. TEVA Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ----oo0oo---- 11 12 PATRICIA HUITT, No. 2:20-cv-00954-WBS-KJN 13 Plaintiff, 14 v. ORDER RE: MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS PENDING A 15 TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., DECISION BY THE JUDICIAL TEVA WOMEN’S HEALTH LLC; TEVA PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT 16 WOMEN’S HEALTH INC., LITIGATION 17 Defendants. 18 19 ----oo0oo---- 20 Plaintiff Patricia Huitt (“plaintiff”) brought this 21 action against Defendants Teva Women’s Health, LLC, Teva Women’s 22 Health, Inc., and Teva Pharmaceutical USA, Inc (“defendants” or 23 “Teva”) seeking damages related to defendants’ design 24 manufacture, surveillance, sale, marketing, advertising, 25 promotion, labeling, packaging, and distribution of the ParaGard 26 Intrauterine Medical Device (“ParaGard IUD”). Before the court 27 is plaintiff’s Motion to Stay Proceedings pending a decision by 28 the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML”) as to 1 whether a coordinated or consolidated multidistrict proceeding 2 for this action and related actions should be established. 3 (“Mot. to Stay”) (Docket No. 27.)1 4 I. Discussion2 5 The power to stay proceedings “is incidental to the 6 power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the 7 cases on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, 8 for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 9 248, 254 (1936). District courts ordinarily have authority to 10 issue stays where such a stay would be a proper exercise of 11 discretion. See Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 276 (2005). 12 Consideration of such a stay calls for “the exercise of judgment 13 which must weigh competing interests and maintain an even 14 balance.” See Landis, 299 U.S. at 254–55. 15 When considering a motion to stay, the district court 16 should consider three factors: (1) potential prejudice to the 17 non-moving party; (2) hardship and inequity to the moving party 18 if the action is not stayed; and (3) the judicial resources that 19 would be saved by avoiding duplicative litigation if the cases 20 are in fact consolidated. See Rivers v. Walt Disney Co., 980 F. 21 Supp. 1358, 1360 (C.D. Cal. 1997.) Defendants do not contend 22 that they would be prejudiced if this court granted plaintiff’s 23 1 The motion for transfer of actions pursuant to 28 24 U.S.C. § 1407 for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings was made on September 24, 2020. (See Mot. to Stay, 25 Ex. A. at 3.) 26 2 The court already recited the factual and procedural 27 background in its order granting defendants’ motion to dismiss. (See Order Granting Mot. to Dismiss at 2 (Docket No. 20).) 28 Accordingly, the court will refrain from doing so again. 1 motion to stay. Their opposition merely states that they opposed 2 the motion filed with the JPML because they disagree that there 3 are “common factual and legal issues” among the ParaGard cases, 4 including this case, that make multidistrict litigation 5 appropriate. (See Def.’s Opp’n. to Mot. to Stay at 3.) (Docket 6 No. 30.) Plaintiff has not argued that she would face hardship 7 and inequity if the action is not stayed. Plaintiff instead 8 advocates for an interim stay in order to promote judicial 9 economy and avoid inconsistent results. (See Mot. to Stay at 4.) 10 Judicial resources will be conserved by staying this 11 matter. The prospect of duplicative motion practice and 12 discovery proceedings suggests that judicial economy weighs 13 heavily in favor of the stay. See Am. Seafood, Inc. v. Magnolia 14 Processing, Inc., Civ. A. Nos. 92-1030, 92-1086, WL 102762, (E.D. 15 Pa. May 7, 1992). After consideration, and because defendants do 16 not argue that they will be prejudiced if this action is stayed, 17 the court concludes that it is in the best interest of judicial 18 economy to stay this case pending a decision by the JPML as to 19 whether the ParaGard cases will be coordinated or consolidated. 20 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff’s Motion to Stay 21 Proceedings is hereby GRANTED. All proceedings in this action 22 are hereby stayed until January 25, 2021. A virtual status 23 conference is set on January 25, 2021, at 1:30 p.m., to determine 24 whether the stay should be lifted or extended. The parties shall 25 file a joint status report by January 20, 2021, informing the 26 court of the status of the current proceedings before the JPML. 27 /// 28 /// eee nnn nnn nn EI IE OR 1 IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 3 | Dated: December 14, 2020 tleom ah. A. be—~ WILLIAMB.SHUBB i (sst—(‘i‘—S UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28