1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 JANET and RON WILCOX, Case No.: 3:20-cv-00599-BEN-WVG

11 Plaintiffs,

ORDER GRANTING JOINT

12 v. MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS

IN PART

13 C.R. BARD, INC., and BARD

PERIPHERAL VASCULAR INC.,

14 [ECF No. 13] Defendants. 15 16 I. INTRODUCTION 17 Plaintiffs Janet and Ron Wilcox (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) bring this action against 18 Defendants C.R. Bard, Inc., and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. (collectively, 19 “Defendants”) related to Defendants’ G2 Vena Cava Filter. ECF No. 1. 20 Before the Court is the Parties’ Joint Motion to Stay Proceedings (the Joint 21 “Motion”). ECF No. 21. After considering the papers submitted, supporting 22 documentation, and applicable law, the Court GRANTS the Joint Motion in part. 23 II. BACKGROUND 24 This case was originally filed directly into the Multi-District Litigation (“MDL”) 25 proceeding In re Bard IVC Filters Products Liability Litigation, MDL 2641 (D. Ariz.) 26 (hereinafter, the “MDL”), pending before Senior Judge David Campbell in the United 27 States District Court for the District of Arizona on May 30, 2019. ECF No. 21 at 2, ¶ 1. 28 The MDL involves personal injury cases brought against Defendants. ECF No. 3 at 1. 1 Defendants manufacture and market medical devices, including inferior vena cava 2 (“IVC”) filters. Id. The MDL Plaintiffs have received implants of Bard IVC filters and 3 claim they are defective and have caused Plaintiffs to suffer serious injury or death. The 4 primary purpose of the MDL was to coordinate pretrial discovery and resolve issues 5 common to all MDL Plaintiffs. ECF No. 5 at 3. After four years, the completion of 6 general issue discovery, and conducting three bellwether trials, Judge Campbell 7 determined the primary purpose of the MDL had been fulfilled. Id. As a result, he ordered 8 cases that have not settled to be transferred to appropriate district courts pursuant to 28 9 U.S.C. §1404(a) for case-specific discovery and trial. Id. Pursuant to the MDL court order, 10 this case was subsequently transferred to this Court on March 30, 2020. ECF No. 5-6. 11 The master complaint gives notice, pursuant to Rule 8 of Federal Rules of Civil 12 Procedure, of the allegations that Plaintiffs assert generally. The master complaint 13 contains seventeen state law claims: manufacturing defect (Counts I and V); failure to 14 warn (Counts II and VII); design defect (Counts III and IV); failure to recall (Count VI); 15 misrepresentation (Counts VIII and XII); negligence per se (Count IX); breach of 16 warranty (Counts X and XI); concealment (Count XIII); consumer fraud and deceptive 17 trade practices (Count XIV); loss of consortium (Count XV); and wrongful death and 18 survival (Counts XVI and XVII). ECF No. 3 at 5. Plaintiffs seek both compensatory and 19 punitive damages. ECF No. 3 at 5:14-21. Plaintiff-specific allegations are contained in 20 individual short-form complaints or certain complaints served on Defendants before the 21 filing of the master complaint. Id. at 5:22-23. 22 On January 7, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a complaint with the United States District 23 Court for the District of Arizona, pleading Counts I through XII, XIV, and XV. ECF No. 24 1 at 3:4-24. Plaintiffs allege that on July 16, 2009, Mrs. Wilcox was implanted with the 25 G2 Vena Cava Filter. ECF No. 1 at 3. On March 26, 2020, this case was transferred to 26 the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. ECF No. 6. 27 On Ocotber 30, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a Joint Motion to Stay Proceedings pursuant 28 1 to Rules 26(c) and (d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Court’s inherent 2 powers, asking the Court to enter an Order temporarily staying proceedings, including 3 discovery and all pretrial deadlines while the Parties continue to engage in settlement 4 discussions to potentially resolve this case. ECF No. 21. 5

III. LEGAL STANDARD

6 A court’s decision to grant a stay is discretionary, “dependent upon the 7 circumstances of the particular case.” Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 432 (2009). The 8 movant bears the burden of showing the circumstances justifying a stay. Id. at 433-34; see 9 Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 708 (1997). A court may stay proceedings incidental to its 10 power “to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and 11 effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 12 (1936). In determining whether a stay is appropriate, a federal court considers the (1) 13 “possibility damage may result from the granting of a stay,” (2) “hardship or inequity which 14 a party may suffer in being required to go forward,” and (3) “orderly course of justice 15 measured in terms of the simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law 16 which could be expected to result from a stay.” CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 17 (9th Cir. 1962) (citing Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55 (1936)). 18

IV. DISCUSSION

19 The Parties seek a Court Order approving the Parties’ Joint Motion to Stay 20 Proceedings, including discovery and all pretrial deadlines imposed by the Local Rules 21 and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for ninety days to allow the Parties to continue 22 settlement discussions. The parties indicate that they “have been actively negotiating a 23 potential settlement of this and the inventory of all cases filed by Plaintiff’s counsel in 24 similar matters.” ECF No. 21 at 2:14-16. They contend “that a stay is necessary to 25 conserve their resources and attention so that they may resolve this case and the claims of 26 other plaintiffs represented by Plaintiff’s counsel.” Id. at 2:16-18. The parties state that 27 “[t]his will prevent the Parties from undertaking unnecessary expenditures and will 28 | preserve judicial resources.” ECF No. 21 at 3:22-23. 2 Given the length of the stay is only ninety (90) days, the purpose of the stay 1s to 3 || facilitate settlement, and neither party opposes the stay, the Court grants the stay after 4 concluding that (1) little to no damage will result from the stay, (2) no parties will suffer 5 inequity as a result of the stay, and (3) the orderly course of justice measured in terms of 6 simplyiging issues warrants granting the stay.

CONCLUSION

8 The Parties’ Joint Motion to Stay, ECF No. 21, is GRANTED in part and the case 9 ||is stayed until February 2, 2021. The Court will hold an in-person status conference on 10 || February 8, 2021 at 10:30 a.m. unless the parties file either (1) Stipulation or Notice of 11 || Dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or (2) Joint 12 || Motion to Dismiss pursuant Rule 41(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure before 13 || February 2, 2021.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

!5 DATED: November 30, 2020 16 HON. ROGER T. BENITE 7 United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 _4-