United States District Court for the Northern District of California, 2025

Grubensky v. Pfizer Inc.

Grubensky v. Pfizer Inc.
United States District Court for the Northern District of California · Decided January 2, 2025
Grubensky v. Pfizer Inc.

Trial Court Opinion

8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JAMIE GRUBENSKY, Case No. 4:24-cv-8746-HSG 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING JOINT 13 v. STIPULATION TO STAY ACTION PFIZER INC., VIATRIS INC., GREENSTONE LLC, PRASCOLABS, PHARMACIA & UPJOHN; and DOES 1 through 50, Inclusive, 16 Defendants.

17 Complaint Filed: December 4, 2024 Trial Date: None set 20 Before the Court is the stipulation of Jamie Grubensky (“Plaintiff”) and Defendants Pfizer Inc., Pharmacia & Upjohn Company LLC, Prasco, LLC d/b/a Prasco Laboratories, Viatris Inc., and Greenstone LLC (“Defendants”), to stay this action.

23 On November 26, 2024, certain plaintiffs filed a petition with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML”) to centralize this and other cases in which plaintiffs allege personal injuries relating to the use of Depo-Provera, into a Multidistrict Litigation (“MDL”) (the “Petition”). The JPML has set the Petition for a hearing on January 30, 2025, and is expected to decide the Petition in early February 2025. The parties seek a stay of this case through March 7, 2025, or until the Petition is decided, whichever is sooner. Courts routinely find good cause to || stay a case during the pendency of a JPML petition. E.g., E.g., Schmidt v. Pfizer Inc, et al., No. || 3:24-cv-06875-JC (N.D. Cal.), ECF No. 53; A.H.M. v. Uber Techs., Inc., No. 23-cv-03482-JSC, || 2023 WL 6199179 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 22, 2023); Hulsh v. Bayer Healthcare Pharms. Inc., No. 15- || cv-04801-JST, 2016 WL 7168398 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 11, 2016); Lyon v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., || No. 19-cv-05270-PJH, 2019 WL 4933586 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 7, 2019); Good v. Prudential Ins. Co. || of America, 5 F. Supp. 2d 804, 809 (N.D. Cal. 1998) (“Courts frequently grant stays pending a || decision by the MDL Panel regarding whether to transfer a case.”).

8 Accordingly, the Court finds good cause for the stipulation and hereby GRANTS the || stipulation. This action shall be stayed through March 7, 2025, or until the JPML decides the || Petition, whichever is sooner. On March 7, 2025, if this action is not transferred to an MDL || proceeding, the parties shall file a joint status update. If the Petition is denied, Defendants shall || have through and until 21 days after the JPML rules on the anticipated JPML petition to respond |] to the Complaint.

15 || Dated: 1/2/2025 Abespworl & Mbt).

Hon. Ha¥wood S. Gilliam, Jr. 16 United States District Court Judge ORDER TO STAY ACTION

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.