Opinion
Case Number: 22-20516-CIV-MARTINEZ
2022-04-27
Israel EPHRAIM, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES, INC., Defendant.
Jonathan Gdanski, Scott P. Schlesinger, Sheldon J. Schlesinger PA, Fort Lauderdale, FL, Jeffrey Louis Haberman, David Silverman, Schlesinger Law Offices, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, FL, for Plaintiffs. Peter W. Homer, Gregory J. Trask, Homer Bonner Jacobs, P.A., Miami, FL, James F. Hurst, Pro Hac Vice, Kirkland & Ellis, LLP, Chicago, IL, Michael A. Glick, Pro Hac Vice, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Washington, DC, for Defendant.
Jonathan Gdanski, Scott P. Schlesinger, Sheldon J. Schlesinger PA, Fort Lauderdale, FL, Jeffrey Louis Haberman, David Silverman, Schlesinger Law Offices, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, FL, for Plaintiffs.
Peter W. Homer, Gregory J. Trask, Homer Bonner Jacobs, P.A., Miami, FL, James F. Hurst, Pro Hac Vice, Kirkland & Ellis, LLP, Chicago, IL, Michael A. Glick, Pro Hac Vice, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Washington, DC, for Defendant.
ORDER STAYING CASE
JOSE E. MARTINEZ, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
THIS CAUSE came before this Court upon Defendant's Expedited Motion to Stay Case Under Local Rule 7.1(d)(2) (the "Motion to Stay"), (ECF No. 12). On April 20, 2022, this Court ordered Plaintiffs to respond to the Motion to Stay on or before Wednesday, April 27, 2022. (ECF No. 13). Plaintiffs filed their Response on April 25, 2022, (ECF No. 14), and Defendant filed its Reply on April 26, 2022, (ECF No. 15). This Court has reviewed the Motion to Stay and pertinent portions of the record and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. Accordingly, and for the reasons set forth herein the Motion to Stay, (ECF No. 12), is GRANTED and this action is STAYED pending the Joint Panel on Multidistrict Litigation's (the "JPML") determination in In re Recalled Abbott Infant Formula Products Liability Litigation , MDL No. 3037 (J.P.M.L. 2022).
On February 20, 2022, Plaintiffs filed this class action arising from Defendant's sale of its Similac Infant Formula that was allegedly contaminated with Cronobacter akazakii. (See generally Compl., ECF No. 1.) On April 13, 2022, a plaintiff in one of the eighteen actions factually related to this action moved to transfer all eighteen actions to a single United States District Judge in the Southern District for Florida or Northern District of Illinois for coordinated and consolidated proceedings in MDL No. 3037. See Motion for Transfer of Actions, In re Recalled Abbott Infant Formula Prods. Liab. Litig. , MDL No. 3037 (J.P.M.L. 2022), ECF No. 1. On April 20, 2022, the Plaintiff in the first-filed action concerning the allegations against Defendant—the action pending before United States District Judge Beth Bloom: Suarez v. Abbott Labs , No. 22-cv-20506-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes (S.D. Fla. 2022)—filed an Interested Party Response in Support of the Motion for Transfer. Interested Party Response Supporting Transfer and Consolidation, In re Recalled Abbott Infant Formula Prods. Liab. Litig. , MDL No. 3037 (J.P.M.L. 2022), ECF No. 6. Hence, considering the JPML's pending decision, Defendant requests that this Court issue a stay in this action. (ECF No. 12.) Plaintiff opposes Defendant's requested relief. (ECF No. 14.)
This Court begins by noting that it has the inherent authority to stay an action before it while the resolution of a related action in another court is pending. See CTI-Container Leasing Corp. v. Uiterwyk Corp. , 685 F.2d 1284, 1288 (11th Cir. 1982) ("The inherent discretionary authority of the district court to stay litigation pending the outcome of related proceeding in another forum is not questioned." (first citing Will v. Calvert Fire Ins. Co. , 437 U.S. 655, 665, 98 S.Ct. 2552, 57 L.Ed.2d 504 (1978) ; then citing Landis v. N. Am. Co. , 299 U.S. 248, 255, 57 S.Ct. 163, 81 L.Ed. 153 (1936) ; and then citing P.P.G. Indus. Inc. v. Continental Oil Co. , 478 F.2d 674, 680–81 (5th Cir. 1973) )); see also Landis , 299 U.S. at 254, 57 S.Ct. 163 ("[T]he power to stay proceedings 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."). Stays, however, must not be "immoderate." Ortega Trujillo v. Conover & Co. Commc'ns , 221 F.3d 1262, 1264 (11th Cir. 2000) (citing CTI-Container Leasing Corp. , 685 F.2d at 1288 ). Moreover, courts "frequently grant stays" pending the JPML's determination whether to consolidate and transfer cases. See, e.g. , Ali v. 7-Eleven, Inc. , No. 22-20328-CIV, 2022 WL 713665, at *1–3 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 10, 2022) ; Hess ex rel. McKenzie v. McNeil-PPC, Inc. , No. 09-80840-CIV, 2009 WL 10667557, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 25, 2009).
"When determining whether to stay a case pending a motion to the JPML to transfer and consolidate, courts consider three factors: (1) potential prejudice to the non-moving party; (2) potential prejudice to the moving party if the stay is not granted; and (3) conservation of judicial resources." Ali , 2022 WL 713665, at *2 (citing Jozwiak v. Stryker Corp. , No. 6:09-cv-1985, 2010 WL 147143, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 11, 2010) ). Here, this Court finds that a stay pending the JPML's determination of the motion to transfer in In re Recalled Abbott Infant Formula Products Liability Litigation , MDL No. 3037 (J.P.M.L. 2022) is appropriate.
First, this Court finds that Plaintiffs will not be prejudiced by a brief stay in this action, especially considering the JPML is due to resolve the subject motion for transfer in a matter of weeks. This action is in its infancy, and Defendant has yet to file a response to the Complaint, which "minimizes any potential prejudice to the Plaintiff[s] from a stay." See Ali , 2022 WL 713665, at *2 (citing Kline v. Earl Stewart Holdings, LLC , No. 10-80912-Civ, 2010 WL 3432824, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 30, 2010) ). Second, Defendant would be prejudiced if a brief stay is not issued. The purpose of a multidistrict ligation ("MDL") is to coordinate and consolidate pretrial proceedings "for the convenience of parties and witnesses and [to] promote the just and efficient conduct of such actions." 28 U.S.C. § 1407(a) ; see also In re: Zantac (Ranitidine) Prods. Liab. Litig. , 339 F.R.D. 669, 685 (S.D. Fla. 2021) ("[T]he purpose of an MDL [is] to centralize proceedings and eliminate duplicate and inconsistent filings." (citing In re: Fountainebleau Las Vegas Contract Litig. , No.09-MD-02106-CIV, 2011 WL 13115470, at *4 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 13, 2011) )). Accordingly, staying this action pending the JPML's decision on the motion for transfer in MDL No. 3037 eliminates the possibility of inconsistent rulings and duplicative litigation. Further, a stay is warranted considering that, as Defendant represents in its Reply, Defendant agreed with the plaintiffs in sixteen of the eighteen other similar actions before the JPML to stay those actions pending the JPML's determination. (ECF No. 15, at 3–4.) Last, this Court finds that staying this action substantially conserves judicial resources. As courts in this district have held, "it is a waste of judicial resources to proceed with the instant action when the JPML is considering ... consolidation...." See Gray v. Target Corp. , No. 13-62769-Civ, 2014 WL 12600138, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 27, 2014) ; Ali , 2022 WL 713665, at *2–3 (collecting cases).
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:
1. The Motion to Stay, (ECF No. 12), is GRANTED.
2. This action is STAYED pending the JPML's determination whether this action should be transferred and consolidated in In re Recalled Abbott Infant Formula Products Liability Litigation , MDL No. 3037 (J.P.M.L. 2022).
3. The Parties SHALL file a joint status report every thirty days from the date of this Order apprising this Court about the status of the JPML's determination. Failure to comply with this Order will result in the imposition of appropriate sanctions.
4. Within seven days of the JPML's determination, the Parties SHALL file a status report detailing the JPML's determination and the status of the instant action, including whether the stay should be lifted.
5. The Clerk is DIRECTED to ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE this action.
This shall not affect the Parties’ substantive rights.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 27th day of April, 2022.