Opinion
2:21-cv-03793-SVW-PVC
07-29-2021
Marina Golden v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S., LLC et al.
Present: The Honorable STEPHEN V. WILSON, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Proceedings: ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STAY [21]
Before the Court are 1) a motion to stay the case pending transfer to an MDL court Dkt. 21; and 2) a motion to remand the case to state court, Dkt. 15.
Numerous district courts in the Central District have granted motions to stay pending MDL transfer orders while motions to remand are pending. See Flores v. Ethicon Inc., 2014 WL 12601023, at *3 (C.D. Cal. 2014) (collecting cases); see also Harboyan v. Johnson & Johnson Co., 2017 WL 3635173, at *1 (C.D. Cal. 2017) ("[C]ourts have generally rejected such arguments in favor of staying the action and allowing the MDL court to decide ... jurisdictional issues." (citations omitted)); In re Diet Drug Litig., 2012 WL 13012665, at *1 (C.D. Cal. 2012) ("The general rale is for federal courts to defer ruling on pending motions to remand in MDL litigation until after the [JPML] has transferred to the MDL panel." (citations omitted)). These cases generally reason that the risk of inconsistent adjudication and judicial economy outweigh any potential prejudice to plaintiffs.
The Court finds these cases persuasive and applicable to the instant case. Accordingly, the Court will stay the case and allow the MDL court to resolve the jurisdictional question upon transfer.
The motion to stay is GRANTED and the motion to remand is DENIED without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.