Grubensky v. Pfizer Inc.
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:24-cv-08746
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Grubensky v. Pfizer Inc., Judge Gilliam granted the parties’ joint stipulation to stay the action pending a multidistrict-litigation decision.
Jamie Grubensky and the named defendants are affected because the case was paused while the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation considered whether to centralize the case.
What happened
In Grubensky v. Pfizer Inc., Jamie Grubensky and the defendants jointly asked the court to pause the case. The request followed a petition to consolidate Depo-Provera personal-injury cases into multidistrict litigation.
The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation scheduled a hearing on the petition for January 30, 2025, and was expected to decide it in early February. The parties requested a stay through March 7, 2025, or until the petition was decided, whichever came first.
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. granted the stipulation. The case was stayed through March 7, 2025, or until the panel decided the petition, whichever came first; if the case was not transferred, the parties had to file a joint status update, and if the petition was denied, defendants would have 21 days after the decision to respond to the complaint.
The detailed version
- Grubensky v. Pfizer Inc. · No. 4:24-cv-08746
- Haywood Gilliam
- Jan. 2, 2025
Background
Jamie Grubensky sued Pfizer Inc., Pharmacia & Upjohn Company LLC, Prasco, LLC doing business as Prasco Laboratories, Viatris Inc., Greenstone LLC, and unnamed defendants. The complaint alleges personal injuries relating to the use of Depo-Provera, according to the order.
On November 26, 2024, certain plaintiffs filed a petition with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to centralize this and other Depo-Provera personal-injury cases into multidistrict litigation. The panel scheduled a hearing for January 30, 2025, and was expected to decide the petition in early February 2025.
The Parties’ Request
Grubensky and the defendants jointly stipulated to staying the action through March 7, 2025, or until the panel decided the petition, whichever was sooner. The order states that courts routinely find good cause to stay cases while such a petition is pending.
Ruling
The court found good cause and granted the stipulation. The action was stayed through March 7, 2025, or until the panel decided the petition, whichever came sooner. If the action was not transferred to multidistrict litigation by March 7, the parties were required to file a joint status update. If the petition was denied, the defendants would have until 21 days after the panel’s ruling to respond to the complaint.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.