Opinion
Civil Action No. 03-0308, Section "T" (5).
March 12, 2003
Before the Court is a Motion for Temporary Stay of All Proceedings Pending a Final Ruling by the Judicial Panel of Multidistrict Litigation (JPMDL) filed on behalf of the Defendant, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Co. ("BMS"). The Court, having considered the arguments of counsel, the evidence presented, the law and applicable jurisprudence, is fully advised in the premises and ready to rule.
ORDER AND REASONS
I. BACKGROUND:
The Plaintiff, Lawrence C. Mathis, filed this suit, alleging serious injuries suffered due to the ingestion of Serzone, in Louisiana state court. Serzone is a drug designed for treatment of depression and has been linked to liver toxicity. The Plaintiff's Complaint was limited to state law causes of action: strict liability, products liability, negligence, redhibition, and medical malpractice. The Plaintiff is a resident of Louisiana and the Defendant, BMS, are the manufacturers of Serzone.
The Defendant had the action removed to this Court on January 31, 2003 and filed the Motion for Temporary Stay on February 7, 2003.
II. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PARTIES:
The Defendant argues that a temporary stay of the proceedings will further the goals of judicial efficiency and consistency by avoiding duplicative proceedings and conflicting pretrial rulings. In deciding whether a stay is appropriate, three factors are to be considered: (1) judicial efficiencies in avoiding duplicative litigation; (2) potential prejudice to a non-moving party; and (3) hardship to the moving party if the action is not stayed. See Rivers v. Walt Disney, 980 F. Supp. 1358, 1360 (C.D. Cal 1997). If pretrial proceedings move forward in this Court, the Court will be forced to rule on various pre-trial motions and set discovery dates that require the Court to educate itself as to the legal and factual issues of a particular case. There are several cases in which courts have outlined the inefficiencies in denying temporary stays in similar situations and they have granted motions to stay pending transfer to the MDL. Furthermore, several judges within the Eastern, Western, and Middle Districts of Louisiana have already issued stay orders in related Serzone litigation, pending the JPMDL's final determination on transfer to MDL-1477. A temporary stay is appropriate in this case because it is inevitable that this case will be transferred to MDL-1477. The Plaintiff's claims concerning Serzone involve numerous common issues of fact with the cases that have already been transferred to the MDL. Judicial efficiency, therefore, requires that the Defendant's Motion for Temporary Stay be granted.
The Defendant also argues that the Plaintiff will not be prejudiced if the Motion for Temporary Stay is granted. The case was filed on December 5, 2002 and, as newly filed, no discovery has taken place. Any delay that may be incurred will be brief and would not warrant denying the Defendant's Motion. Furthermore, any potential prejudice that may befall the Plaintiff is outweighed by the benefits of issuing the temporary stay to promote judicial economy. Some courts have even granted stays where the delay would be prejudicial to the Plaintiff. The length of the stay is limited to the time necessary to allow the JPMDL to decide this matter. Once the JPMDL's decision is made, the case will continue in the transferee District or in this Court.
The Defendant further argues that they will be substantially prejudiced if their Motion for Temporary Stay is denied because they will be required to incur unnecessary expenses of time and resources in order to engage in duplicative pretrial proceedings. The MDL proceedings are designed to prevent these duplicative pretrial activities. The potential for duplicative discovery is also a necessary factor in determining the "hardship and inequity" imposed by denying a motion to stay. See Rivers, 980 F. Supp at 1360. Since the case is in its early stages and the Plaintiff will not be prejudiced, the Court should grant the Defendant's Motion.
The Plaintiff, Lawrence C. Mathis, did not file an opposition to the Motion.
III. LAW AND ANALYSIS:
The pendency of a transfer order in no way defeats or limits the authority of this Court to rule upon matters properly before it. See, Boudreaux v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 1995 WL 83788 (E.D.La. 1995); Rule 1.5 of the Rules of Multidistrict Litigation. However, the decision whether to grant or deny a stay is completely within the discretion of the Court. Id., See also, Landis v. North American Co., 57 S.Ct. 163, 299 U.S. 248 (1936).
The Court, having considered the arguments of counsel, is prepared to grant the Defendant's Motion for Temporary Stay.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the Defendant's, BMS, Motion for Temporary Stay of All Proceedings Pending a Final Ruling by the Judicial Panel of Multidistrict Litigation is hereby GRANTED.