Rojas v. Teva Pharmaceuticals, USA, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK NIKKIA ROJAS, Plaintiff, No. 20-CV-6448 (KMK) v. ORDER TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., et al., Defendants. KENNETH M. KARAS, District Judge: On October 21, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Motion To Stay Proceedings Pending a Decision by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the “Motion” and the “JPML”). (Mot. (Dkt. No. 23); Mem. in Supp. (“Pl.’s Mem.”) (Dkt. No. 23-1).) The JPML is considering whether to consolidate cases arising out of injuries allegedly resulting from use of the ParaGard Intrauterine Device (“ParaGard”). (Id.) Defendants opposed the Motion, but did not argue that the stay would prejudice them. (Defs.’ Mem. in Opp. to Mot. (“Defs.’ Mem.”) (Dkt. No. 43).)1 Plaintiff submitted a reply. (Dkt. No. 50.) The Court has inherent power to stay proceedings. Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). The Court decides whether to issue a stay by weighing five factors: (1) the private interests of the plaintiffs in proceeding expeditiously with the civil litigation as balanced against the prejudice to the plaintiffs if delayed; (2) the private interests of and burden on the defendants; (3) the interests of the courts; (4) the interests of persons not parties to the civil litigation; and (5) the public interest. 1 Three defendants—Teva Branded Pharmaceutical Products R&D, Inc., The Cooper Companies, Inc., and CooperSurgical, Inc.—did not join this opposition because they intend to contest the Court’s personal jurisdiction. (Defs.’ Mem. 2.) Ritchie Cap. Mgmt., LLC v. Gen. Elec. Cap. Corp., 87 F. Supp. 3d 463, 471 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (quoting Royal Park Invs. SA/NV v. Bank of Am. Corp., 941 F. Supp. 2d 367, 370 (S.D.N.Y. 2013)). Many courts have stayed proceedings pending a decision by the JPML on whether to consolidate cases. See, e.g., Royal Park, 941 F. Supp. 2d at 370 (collecting cases) (“[C]ourts have routinely stayed motions pending rulings by the JPML”); see also Rivers v. Walt Disney Co., 980 F. Supp. 1358, 1362 (C.D. Cal. 1997) (“[A] majority of courts have concluded that it is often appropriate to stay preliminary pretrial proceedings while a motion to transfer and consolidate is pending with the [JPML] because of the judicial resources that are conserved.”). Indeed, in this district, at least three courts have stayed proceedings in cases related to ParaGard based on nearly identical applications. (See Dkt. No. 42 (Harnish, 20-CV-5942 Dkt.); Dkt. No. 82 (Lewis, 20-CV-4048 Dkt.); and Dkt. No. 36 (Silfa, 20-CV-7979 Dkt.); cf. Dkt. (minute entry for Nov. 9, 2020) (Melendez, 20-CV-6683 Dkt.) (staying discovery “with the exception of motion practice, Rule 26 Initial Disclosures, and the exchange (but not production) of document requests”).) Here, the Court similarly finds that a stay is appropriate. A stay will allow Plaintiff and Defendants to avoid the risk of duplicating their briefing on Defendants’ motion to dismiss. (See Pl.’s Mem. 4–5.) A stay will also reduce the risk of inconsistent rulings. (See id. at 5.) If the JPML declines to consolidate the ParaGard cases, this Action will proceed as before, with no prejudice to either party. (See id.) As mentioned, Defendants do not argue that they would be prejudiced by a stay. (See generally Defs.’ Mem.) Further, because the JPML has scheduled a hearing for December 3, 2020, (see Dkt. No. 28 (In re: ParaGard IUD Prods. Liab. Litig., MDL No. 2974 Dkt.)), the stay will likely be short, which further reduces any risk of prejudice, see Ritchie Cap. Mgmt., 87 F. Supp. 3d at 471 (‘A short stay will not prejudice [the non-moving party].”). For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion is granted, and this case is stayed pending the JPML decision regarding consolidation and transfer of this Action.” The Parties are directed to file a status letter advising the Court of the JPML’s decision within one week of when a ruling is issued. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the pending Motion, (Dkt. No. 23). SO ORDERED. DATED: December 1, 2020 iirc Sy White Plains, New York KENNETH M. KARAS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE ? Plaintiff’ s deadline to amend her complaint is stayed as well. (See Dkt. No. 52.)