Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Dec. 1, 2020

Rojas v. Teva Pharmaceuticals, USA, Inc.

Judge
Kenneth Karas
Docket
7:20-cv-06448
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
Civil ProcedureTort
In one sentence

In Rojas v. Teva Pharmaceuticals, Judge Karas granted Rojas’s motion to stay the case pending the Judicial Panel’s consolidation decision.

Who this affects

Nikkia Rojas and the defendants were affected because the case, including Rojas’s deadline to amend her complaint, was stayed pending the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation’s decision on consolidation and transfer.

What happened

In Rojas v. Teva Pharmaceuticals, USA, Inc., Nikkia Rojas asked the court to pause the case while the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation considered whether to combine related ParaGard injury cases.

The court found that pausing the case would avoid duplicated briefing and inconsistent decisions, and that the pause was unlikely to harm either side because the Panel had scheduled a hearing soon.

Judge Karas granted the motion and stayed the case pending the Panel’s decision on consolidation and transfer. The parties must notify the court of that decision within one week after it is issued.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Rojas v. Teva Pharmaceuticals, USA, Inc. · No. 7:20-cv-06448
Judge
Kenneth Karas
Date
Dec. 1, 2020

Background

Nikkia Rojas filed a motion to stay, or temporarily pause, the case while the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation considered whether to consolidate and transfer cases involving alleged injuries from the ParaGard intrauterine device. The defendants opposed the motion but did not argue that a stay would prejudice them. Three defendants did not join the opposition because they intended to contest the court’s personal jurisdiction.

Court’s analysis

The court said it has authority to stay proceedings and considered the interests of the parties, the courts, nonparties, and the public. It found that a stay would allow the parties to avoid duplicating their briefing on the defendants’ motion to dismiss and would reduce the risk of inconsistent rulings. If the Panel declined to consolidate the cases, this case could proceed as before. The court also noted that the Panel had scheduled a December 3, 2020 hearing, making the stay likely to be short.

Ruling

Judge Kenneth M. Karas granted Rojas’s motion and stayed the case pending the Judicial Panel’s decision regarding consolidation and transfer. The parties were directed to file a status letter within one week after the Panel issued its ruling. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the pending motion. The opinion also states that Rojas’s deadline to amend her complaint was stayed.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.