Jensen v. Pfizer, Inc.

Filing 52

COPY OF TRANSFER ORDER from Panel on Multidistrict Litigation - MDL No. 2092, Chantix (Varenicline) Products - the actions listed on Schedule A and pending outside the Northern District of Alabama are transferred to the Northern District of Alabama a nd, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Inge P. Johnson for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with the actions pending in that district and listed on Schedule A. (case to be transferred upon receipt of certified copy of transfer order from USDC-Alabama) (ADB, ) [Transferred from Nebraska on 10/14/2009.]

Download PDF
Oct 01, 2009 UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL on MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION IN RE: CHANTIX (VARENICLINE) PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION MDL No. 2092 TRANSFER ORDER Before the entire Panel*: Plaintiffs in 32 actions pending in various districts have submitted three motions, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1407, to centralize this litigation in one of three suggested districts: the Northern District of Alabama (favored by plaintiffs in 25 actions), the Northern District of Georgia (favored by plaintiffs in three actions), or the District of Minnesota (favored by plaintiffs in four actions). Common defendant Pfizer Inc. (Pfizer) does not oppose centralization, but favors selection of the Southern District of New York as transferee district. This litigation currently consists of 37 actions pending in sixteen districts as follows: five in the Western District of Louisiana, four in the District of Minnesota, four in the Eastern District of Missouri, four in the Western District of Tennessee, three in the Northern District of Alabama, three in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, two in the Northern District of Georgia, two in the Western District of Kentucky, two in the Middle District of Louisiana, two in the District of South Carolina, and one each in the Southern District of Alabama, the Southern District of Illinois, the Southern District of Indiana, the Eastern District of Kentucky, the District of Nebraska, and the Eastern District of Tennessee, as listed on Schedule A.1 On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, we find that these 37 actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization under Section 1407 in the Northern District of Alabama will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. All 37 actions share factual issues regarding, inter alia, Pfizer's design, testing, manufacture, and marketing of Chantix (varenicline), a smoking cessation drug alleged to have numerous adverse side effects, including causing suicidal ideation, depression, seizures, memory loss, and/or other mental or physical ailments. Centralization under Section 1407 will eliminate duplicative discovery, prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings on discovery and other issues, and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel and the judiciary. * Judge Heyburn took no part in the disposition of this matter. The parties have notified the Panel of five additional related actions. Those actions and any other related actions are potential tag-along actions. See Rules 7.4 and 7.5, R.P.J.P.M.L., 199 F.R.D. 425, 435-36 (2001). 1 -2We are persuaded that the Northern District of Alabama is an appropriate transferee district for pretrial proceedings in this litigation. The 37 constituent actions are scattered among sixteen districts, and no one district stands out as the geographic focal point of this litigation. The Northern District of Alabama, however, is favored by a clear majority of plaintiffs, and currently is home to only one pending multidistrict litigation proceeding. In addition, three of the constituent actions were brought in that district, and Judge Inge P. Johnson, who is already overseeing two of them, has the time and experience to steer this litigation on a prudent course. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1407, the actions listed on Schedule A and pending outside the Northern District of Alabama are transferred to the Northern District of Alabama and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Inge P. Johnson for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with the actions pending in that district and listed on Schedule A. PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION Robert L. Miller, Jr. Acting Chairman John G. Heyburn II, Chairman* David R. Hansen Frank C. Damrell, Jr. Kathryn H. Vratil W. Royal Furgeson, Jr. IN RE: CHANTIX (VARENICLINE) PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION MDL No. 2092 SCHEDULE A Northern District of Alabama Amelia C. McKnight v. Pfizer Inc., C.A. No. 2:09-1138 Kay McMullan, et al. v. Pfizer Inc., C.A. No. 3:09-433 LouAnn Barnett, etc. v. Pfizer Inc., C.A. No. 3:09-1203 Southern District of Alabama Billy G. Bedsole, Jr. v. Pfizer Inc., C.A. No. 2:09-307 Northern District of Georgia Mary Elizabeth Rook, etc. v. Pfizer Inc., C.A. No. 1:09-1400 Virginia Spencer v. Pfizer Inc., C.A. No. 1:09-1672 Southern District of Illinois Helen Boschert v. Pfizer Inc., C.A. No. 3:09-385 Southern District of Indiana Linda Collins, etc. v. Pfizer Inc., C.A. No. 1:08-888 Eastern District of Kentucky Charles A. Fritts v. Pfizer Inc., C.A. No. 6:09-224 Western District of Kentucky James Robinson, et al. v. Pfizer Inc., C.A. No. 3:09-357 Derrick L. Horne, Sr. v. Pfizer Inc., C.A. No. 5:08-173 Middle District of Louisiana Linda F. Jenkins, et al. v. Pfizer Inc., C.A. No. 3:09-277 Donna Rice v. Pfizer Inc., C.A. No. 3:09-418 - A2 MDL No. 2092 Schedule A (Continued) Western District of Louisiana Daniel Williams v. Pfizer Inc., C.A. No. 3:08-1222 Melinda Lofton v. Pfizer Inc., C.A. No. 3:08-1224 Judy Brennon v. Pfizer Inc., C.A. No. 3:09-1093 Randall Scott Mercer v. Pfizer Inc., C.A. No. 5:08-1640 Jimmie Ivory, et al. v. Pfizer Inc., C.A. No. 5:09-72 District of Minnesota Hayward G. Carr v. Pfizer Inc., C.A. No. 0:09-1947 Michael B. Shannon v. Pfizer Inc., C.A. No. 0:09-1951 Ryan M. Dean v. Pfizer Inc., C.A. No. 0:09-1952 Joel Ricketts v. Pfizer Inc., C.A. No. 0:09-1953 Eastern District of Missouri Stephanie Sorocko v. Pfizer Inc., C.A. No. 4:08-1714 Aidan Dillard v. Pfizer Inc., C.A. No. 4:09-789 Kimberly McDonald v. Pfizer Inc., C.A. No. 4:09-792 Vonda Sue Johnson v. Pfizer Inc., C.A. No. 4:09-845 District of Nebraska Carol A. Jensen, etc. v. Pfizer Inc., C.A. No. 8:08-414 Eastern District of Pennsylvania Brian Kline v. Pfizer Inc., C.A. No. 2:08-3238 Pauletta Jones v. Pfizer Inc., C.A. No. 2:09-2577 Shelly Silk, etc. v. Pfizer Inc., C.A. No. 2:09-2578 District of South Carolina Clark Wheeler v. Pfizer Inc., C.A. No. 2:09-1397 Leonard Lacobie v. Pfizer Inc., C.A. No. 6:09-1117 Eastern District of Tennessee Eusticia Douglas v. Pfizer Inc., C.A. No. 3:08-343 - A3 MDL No. 2092 Schedule A (Continued) Western District of Tennessee Elizabeth Ann Carter v. Pfizer Inc., C.A. No. 2:08-2739 Amanda Peek v. Pfizer Inc., C.A. No. 2:08-2740 Bertha June Lantrip v. Pfizer Inc., C.A. No. 2:08-2778 Lauren Crislip v. Pfizer Inc., C.A. No. 2:09-2403

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?