UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JS-6 CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL No. 2:21-cv-03793-SVW-PVC Date July 29, 2021

Marina Golden v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S., LLC et al.

Present: The Honorable STEPHEN V. WILSON, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE Paul M. Cruz N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants: N/A N/A Proceedings: ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STAY [21]

Before the Court are 1) a motion to stay the case pending transfer to an MDL court, Dkt. 21; and 2) a motion to remand the case to state court, Dkt. 15. Numerous district courts in the Central District have granted motions to stay pending MDL transfer orders while motions to remand are pending. See Flores v. Ethicon Inc.,

, at *3 (C.D. Cal. 2014) (collecting cases): see also Harboyan v. Johnson & Johnson Co.,

, at *1 (C.D. Cal. 2017) (“[C]ourts have generally rejected such arguments in favor of staying the action and allowing the MDL court to decide ... jurisdictional issues.” (citations omitted)); Jn re Diet Drug Litig.,

, at *1 (C.D. Cal. 2012) (“The general rule is for federal courts to defer ruling on pending motions to remand in MDL litigation until after the [JPML] has transferred to the MDL panel.” (citations omitted)). These cases generally reason that the risk of inconsistent adjudication and judicial economy outweigh any potential prejudice to plaintiffs. The Court finds these cases persuasive and applicable to the instant case. Accordingly, the Court will stay the case and allow the MDL court to resolve the jurisdictional question upon transfer. The motion to stay is GRANTED and the motion to remand is DENIED without prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Initials of Preparer PMC