Euell Et Al v. Merck & Co., Inc. Et Al - Document No. 24
Uploaded by
Justia.comEuell Et Al v. Merck & Co., Inc. Et Al - Document No. 24
Uploaded by
Justia.comCase 4:05-cv-01497-ERW Document 24 Filed 09/26/2005 Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
EUELL et al., )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
vs. ) Case No. 4:05CV01497 ERW
)
MERCK & CO. et al., )
)
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court upon Defendant Merck’s Motion to Stay [doc. #9], filed on
September 16, 2005. Plaintiffs have not opposed the Motion, and the time for doing so has expired.
This action concerns the prescription drug VIOXX, manufactured by Defendant Merck. On September
30, 2004, Defendant Merck announced that, in a clinical study known as APPROVe,1 there was an increased
relative risk for confirmed cardiovascular events beginning after 18 months of treatment in patients taking
VIOXX compared with those taking a placebo. Defendant Merck subsequently voluntarily withdrew VIOXX
from the market. Thereafter, numerous suits were filed across the nation seeking some form of recovery for
plaintiffs who had purchased and ingested VIOXX. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the “MDL”)
has entered an order establishing MDL-1657, In re VIOXX Products Liability Litigation. According to
Defendant Merck, this case is a potential “tag-along” action.
A district court has the inherent power to stay its proceedings. This power is “incidental to the power
inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort
for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). This
power requires a court to exercise its “judgment, which must weigh competing interests and maintain an even
1
The APPROVe study was a prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial designed to
evaluate the efficacy of VIOXX 25 mg. in preventing recurrence of colorectal polyps in patients with a
history of collerectal adenomas.
PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com
Case 4:05-cv-01497-ERW Document 24 Filed 09/26/2005 Page 2 of 2
balance.” Id. A court need not automatically stay a case merely because a party has moved the MDL for
transfer and consolidation. See Rivers v. Walt Disney, 980 F.Supp. 1358, 1360 (C.D. Cal. 1997). In
considering a motion for stay, a court should consider both the interest of judicial economy and the potential
prejudice or hardship to the parties. Id.
In its Motion, Defendant Merck requests that the Court stay all proceedings in this action pending
resolution of its motion currently before the MDL Panel for transfer of this case, and numerous other cases
with certain overlapping factual issues and similar legal theories, to a single court for coordinated pretrial
management. In support of its Motion, Defendant Merck argues that judicial economy mandates a stay. After
considering Defendant Merck’s arguments, the Court concludes that a stay is warranted. It appears likely that
this case will be included in a future conditional transfer order. This case involves the same factual inquiries
that are present in the other hundreds of VIOXX cases, including the alleged increased health risks of taking
VIOXX and whether Merck knew of these increased risks and failed to disclose them to the medical community
and consumers. The Court finds Defendant Merck’s judicial economy argument persuasive and concludes that
judicial economy weighs in favor of granting the requested stay. The Court also considers the resulting
prejudice to the parties. The Court concludes that, although Plaintiffs might well be subjected to some delay
as a result of the issuance of a stay, that prejudice does not outweigh the efficiency concerns described herein.
Therefore, Defendant Merck’s Motion will be granted.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Merck’s Motion to Stay [doc. #9] is GRANTED.
Dated this 26th day of September, 2005.
E. RICHARD WEBBER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
PDF created with FinePrint pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com
You might also like
- No ratings yetDaniel Marion Schroyer v. Sergeant Purrington Doctor Ong Nurse Evans Nurse Dennis Captain Blunt, Daniel Marion Schroyer v. Edward W. Murray, Director of D.O.C. R. B. Kessler, Health Administrator, D.O.C. O. J. Bristow, Chief of Nursing Services, D.O.C. L. T. Lester, Assistant Warden, P.R.C.C. Patricia Terrange, Warden Unit C, G.R.C. E. B. Wright, Facility Director, G.R.C., 8 F.3d 820, 4th Cir. (1993)3 pages
