Association of Arkansas Counties et al v. Purdue Pharma Inc et al

Filing 12

CONDITIONAL TRANSFER ORDER (CTO-5) MDL No. 2804. Transferring case 4:17-cv-00831-JLH to the Northern District of Ohio. Signed by Jeffrey N. Luthi, Clerk of the Panel on 1/24/2018. (jak)

Download PDF

UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL on MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION IN RE: NATIONAL PRESCRIPTION OPIATE LITIGATION MDL No. 2804 (SEE ATTACHED SCHEDULE) CONDITIONAL TRANSFER ORDER (CTO 5) On December 5, 2017, the Panel transferred 62 civil action(s) to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407. See _F.Supp.3d_ (J.P.M.L. 2017). Since that time, 160 additional action(s) have been transferred to the Northern District of Ohio. With the consent of that court, all such actions have been assigned to the Honorable Dan A. Polster. It appears that the action(s) on this conditional transfer order involve questions of fact that are common to the actions previously transferred to the Northern District of Ohio and assigned to Judge Polster. Pursuant to Rule 7.1 of the Rules of Procedure of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, the action(s) on the attached schedule are transferred under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to the Northern District of Ohio for the reasons stated in the order of December 5, 2017, and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Dan A. Polster. This order does not become effective until it is filed in the Office of the Clerk of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. The transmittal of this order to said Clerk shall be stayed 7 days from the entry thereof. If any party files a notice of opposition with the Clerk of the Panel within this 7 day period, the stay will be continued until further order of the Panel. FOR THE PANEL: Jan 24, 2018 Jeffery N. Lüthi Clerk of the Panel I hereby certify that this instrument is a true and correct copy of the original on file in my office. Attest: Sandy Opacich, Clerk U.S. District Court Northern District of Ohio By: /s/Robert Pitts Deputy Clerk IN RE: NATIONAL PRESCRIPTION OPIATE LITIGATION SCHEDULE CTO 5 DIST DIV. MDL No. 2804 TAG ALONG ACTIONS C.A.NO. CASE CAPTION 17 00831 Association of Arkansas Counties et al v. Purdue Pharma Inc et al Board of Commissioners of The County of Allen The v. Purdue Pharma LP et al Fort Wayne City of v. Cardinal Health Inc et al ARKANSAS EASTERN ARE 4 INDIANA NORTHERN INN 1 18 00003 INN 1 18 00005 INDIANA SOUTHERN INS 1 18 00047 INS 1 18 00048 INS 1 18 00054 INS 1 18 00057 INS 1 18 00060 INS 2 18 00010 INS 2 18 00011 INS 4 18 00003 INS 4 18 00006 IOWA SOUTHERN CITY OF GREENWOOD, INDIANA v. AMERISOURCEBERGEN DRUG CORPORATION et al CITY OF NOBLESVILLE, INDIANA v. AMERISOURCEBERGEN DRUG CORPORATION et al TOWN OF ATLANTA, INDIANA v. CARDINAL HEALTH, INC. et al CITY OF MUNCIE, INDIANA v. CARDINAL HEALTH, INC., et al CITY OF KOKOMO, INDIANA v. AMERISOURCEBERGEN DRUG CORPORATION et al VIGO COUNTY INDIANA v. AMERISOURCEBERGEN DRUG CORPORATION et al CITY OF TERRE HAUTE, INDIANA v. CARDINAL HEALTH, INC. et al HARRISON COUNTY, INDIANA v. CARDINAL HEALTH, INC. et al JENNINGS COUNTY v. PURDUE PHARMA L.P. et al IAS IAS 4 4 18 00010 18 00011 Polk County v. Purdue Pharma LP et al Adair County et al v. Purdue Pharma LP et al 17 00193 Pike v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. et al Opposed 1/24/18 2 18 00002 Woods v. Purdue Pharma L P et al 1 18 00063 Cecil County, Maryland v. Amerisourcebergen Drug Corporation et al Hapgood v. Purdue Pharma L.P. et al City of Woburn v. Amerisourcebergen Drug Corporation et al City of Methuen v. Amerisourcebergen Drug Corporation et al KENTUCKY EASTERN KYE 7 LOUISIANA WESTERN LAW MARYLAND MD MASSACHUSETTS MA 1 18 10010 MA 3 18 10032 MA 3 18 10035 MICHIGAN EASTERN MIE 1 18 10078 MIE 5 18 10077 County of Roscommon, Michigan v. Purdue Pharma L.P. et al County of Crawford, Michigan v. Purdue Pharma L.P. et al 1 1 1 2 18 18 18 18 Leelanau, County of v. Purdue Pharma L.P. et al Mason, County of v. Purdue Pharma L.P. et al Manistee, County of v. Purdue Pharma L.P. et al Marquette, County of v. Purdue Pharma L.P. et al 0 18 00062 MICHIGAN WESTERN MIW MIW MIW MIW 00030 00032 00033 00001 MINNESOTA MN County of Anoka, Minnesota v. Purdue Pharma L.P. et al MISSISSIPPI NORTHERN MSN 3 18 00006 MSN 3 18 00007 MSN 3 18 00008 MISSISSIPPI SOUTHERN Tippah County, Mississippi v. Amerisourcebergen Drug Corporation et al Benton County, Mississippi v. Amerisourcebergen Drug Corporation et al Union County, Mississippi v. Amerisourcebergen Drug Corporation et al MSS 5 18 00009 Amite County, Mississippi v. Amerisourcebergen Drug Corporation et al NEW YORK NORTHERN NYN 1 18 00024 County of Albany, New York v. Purdue Pharma L.P. et al NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN NCE 7 18 00001 NCE 7 18 00002 Onslow County v. AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation et al City of Jacksonville v. AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation et al NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN NCW 1 18 00004 Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians v. AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation et al 18 04003 Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe et al v. Purdue Pharma L.P. et al SOUTH DAKOTA SD 4 TENNESSEE EASTERN TNE 2 18 00002 TNE 2 18 00003 TNE 3 18 00006 Greene County, Tennessee v. Amerisourcebergen Drug Corporation et al Johnson County v. Amerisourcebergen Drug Corporation et al (TV1) Campbell County v. Amerisourcebergen Drug Corporation et al (JRG2) 18 00008 Williamson County, Tennessee v. AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation et al 18 02016 Haywood County v. Amerisourcebergen Drug Coropration et al 18 00002 18 00002 County of Camp v. Purdue Pharma L.P. et al County of Franklin v. Purdue Pharma L.P. et al TENNESSEE MIDDLE TNM 3 TENNESSEE WESTERN TNW 1 TEXAS EASTERN TXE TXE 2 5 WEST VIRGINIA SOUTHERN WVS 5 17 04484 Raleigh County Commission v. CVS Indiana, L.L.C. et al WISCONSIN EASTERN WIE 2 18 00022 Brown County et al v. Purdue Pharma LP et al

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?