Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
PURDUE PHARMA L.P.; Purdue Pharma, Inc.; The Purdue Frederick Company Inc.; Purdue Pharmaceuticals L.P.; Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.; Cephalon, Inc.; Johnson & Johnson; Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., n/k/a Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Janssen Pharmaceutica, Inc., n/k/a Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Abbvie Inc.; Abbvie US LLC; Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Endo Health Solutions, Inc.; Allergan, Inc.; Allergan USA, Inc.; Allergan Finance, LLC, f/k/a Actavis, Inc., f/k/a Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Watson Laboratories, Inc.; Actavis LLC; Actavis Pharma, Inc., f/k/a Watson Pharma, Inc.; Insys Therapeutics, Inc.; and Mallinckrodt LLC, Petitioners, v. The EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT of the State of Nevada, IN AND FOR the COUNTY OF CLARK; and the Honorable Timothy C. Williams, District Judge, Respondents, Clark County, Real Party in Interest.
ORDER DISMISSING PETITION
This is a petition for a writ of mandamus directing the district court to dismiss the underlying action.
Several defendants in the proceedings below, Cardinal Health, Inc., AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation, and McKesson Corporation have filed joinders to the writ petition; real party in interest has moved to strike the joinders, the defendants have filed an opposition, and real party has filed a reply.
On September 20, 2019, Cardinal Health, Inc., filed a “Notice of Filing of Notice of Removal,” in which it asserts that the underlying proceedings have been removed to the United States District Court for the District of Nevada. Attached to the notice is a copy of a notice of removal of the underlying district court case. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d), after the filing of a notice of removal, and notice to this court of its filing, “the State court shall proceed no further unless and until the case is remanded.” Despite Cardinal Health Inc.’s assertion that it has filed for remand to the Eighth Judicial District Court, the federal district court's jurisdiction over the matters commenced when the notice of removal was filed in that court. See In re Diet Drugs, 282 F.3d 220, 231 n.6 (3rd Cir. 2002). This court can no longer proceed with the matters “until the federal court decides whether it will retain jurisdiction or not.” Adair Pipeline Company v. Pipeliners Local Union No. 798, 203 F. Supp. 434, 437 (S.D. Tex. 1962). This court therefore takes no action on the pending joinders and motion to strike.
Finally, to avoid having this petition linger on this court's docket indefinitely, this court dismisses the petition without prejudice to petitioners’ right to move for its reinstatement within 30 days of any remand from the federal district court, if deemed appropriate.
It is so ORDERED.1
FOOTNOTES
1. The Honorable Kristina Pickering, Justice, and Ron Parraguirre, Justice, did not participate in the decision of this matter.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 79002
Decided: October 21, 2019
Court: Supreme Court of Nevada.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)