Thomas v. Takeda Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. et al

Filing 33

TRANSFER ORDER. CASE TRANSFERRED to the District of New Jersey. MDL No. 2789. (Robles, S)

UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

Foregoing is a true and correct copy of
The original on file in my office.
A17EST
WILLIAM T. WALSH, Cleck
United States District Ceut
District of New Jersey
By:

-

s/iacgu,eLambiase
Deputy Clerk

IN RE: PROTON-PUMP INHIBITOR PRODUCTS
LIABILITY LITIGATION (NO. II)

Date

8/4/17
MDL No. 2789

TRANSFER ORDER

Before the Panel: Plaintiffs in 24 actions pending in the District of New Jersey move to
centralize this litigation in that district, or, in the alternative, the Southern District of Illinois. The
litigation consists of the 161 actions listed on the attached Schedule A. The Panel has been informed
of 34 additional federal actions involving related issues.1
All responding plaintiffs support centralization, but certain plaintiffs argue, in the first
instance, for the Southern District of Illinois. Defendants’ positions on centralization vary.
Defendants AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP and AstraZeneca LP (AstraZeneca) support
centralization in the District of New Jersey or the Central District of California. Defendants Pfizer
Inc., Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Wyeth, LLC, and Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories (collectively Pfizer)
support centralization in the District of New Jersey (or, in the alternative, the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania). Defendants Procter & Gamble Company and The Procter & Gamble Manufacturing
Company (P&G) do not oppose centralization in the District of New Jersey. Various Takeda
defendants (Takeda)2 oppose centralization, and do not suggest any transferee district, if
centralization is ordered over their objections. Novartis Consumer Health, Inc. (NCH), which is
sued only in a potential tag-along action (in which Takeda also is a defendant), also opposes
centralization, and, if centralization is ordered over its objections, advocates the District of New
Jersey or the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Both Takeda and NCH further argue that if an MDL
is created, any cases or claims against them should be excluded. Finally, three other Novartis entities
Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics, Inc. and Novartis
Institute for Biomedical Research, Inc. oppose centralization on the grounds that they are not

—

—

*

Judge Marjorie 0. Rendell took no part in the decision of this matter.

These and any other related actions are potential tag-along actions. See Panel Rules 1.1(h),
7.1, and 7.2.
2

Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited, Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc., Takeda
Pharmaceuticals International, Inc., Takeda Development Center Americas, Inc., Takeda California,
Inc., Takeda Pharmaceuticals America, Inc., Takeda GmbH, Takeda Pharmaceuticals LLC, and TAP
Pharmaceutical Products, Inc.

-2current or fonner manufacturers or developers of any of the pharmaceuticals at issue, and thus are
not proper parties.
I.
In the complaints in these 161 personal injury and wrongful death actions, plaintiffs allege
that as a result of taking one or more proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs), they or their decedents suffered
kidney injury (e.g., chronic kidney disease (CKD),3 acute interstitial nephritis, end stage renal
disease, or kidney failure). Plaintiffs allege that defendants failed to adequately warn ofthe negative
effects and risks associated with PPIs.
This litigation is before us for the second time this year. At our January hearing session, we
denied a motion for centralization brought by plaintiffs in six PPI actions. In re: Proton-Pump
Inhibitor Prods. Liab. Litig. (Proton-Pump 1),
F. Supp. 3d—, 2017 WL 475581 (J.P.M.L. Feb.
2, 2017). The motion encompassed fifteen constituent actions and 24 potential tag-along actions
pending in a total of seventeen districts. Id. at * 1. All defendants opposed centralization. Id.
—

In Proton-Pump I, we recognized that the actions shared certain factual issues “arising from
plaintiffs’ allegations that taking [PPIs] may result in various types of kidney injury,” including the
conditions listed above. Id. But we concluded that centralization was not warranted for a number
ofreasons. First, the named defendants varied from action to action: AstraZeneca was sued in most
of the actions (14 constituent actions and 23 tag-alongs), but P&G was sued in only eight, Takeda
in four, and Pfizer in two. We thus reasoned that centralization “appear[ed] unlikely to serve the
convenience of most, if not all, defendants and their witnesses.” Id. Second, defendants were (and
still are) competitors, and centralizing them in a single MDL “likely would complicate case
management due to the need to protect trade secret and confidential information,” and might prolong
pretrial proceedings, because of, inter atia, the possible need for separate discovery and motion
tracks, as well as additional bellwether trials. Id. at *2. Third, we found that a significant amount
of discovery was “almost certain to be defendant-specific,” given that the drugs at issue were “not
identical,” with each having “a unique development, testing, and marketing history, and each [having
been] approved by the FDA at different times.” Id. We stated that the differences among the drugs,
as well as the variety of injuries alleged, “significantly undermine[d] any efficiency gains to be
achieved from centralization.” Id. Finally, we noted that although moving plaintiffs had “almost
guarantee{d]” that the number of actions would increase “by the hundreds if not thousands,” the
Section 1407 motion encompassed only 39 cases, including tag-alongs. Id.

Plaintiffs in more than 120 of the constituent actions allege that they suffered CKD.

-3II.

In support of this new motion,4 plaintiffs, AstraZeneca, and Pfizer argue that the number of
involved actions, districts, and plaintiffs’ counsel has increased significantly since Proton-Pump I,
that many more cases likely will be filed, that there now are a significant number of related state
court actions,5 and that informal coordination and cooperation are not practicable to manage
litigation of this scope. After careful review of the record, we agree with this assessment.
As stated above, these actions share factual issues arising from allegations that taking one
or more PPIs can result in kidney injury, and that defendants failed to adequately warn of the
negative effects and risks of PPI use. Although several of the grounds on which we denied
centralization in Proton-Pump I remain largely valid,6 we fmd that the significantly larger number
of involved actions, districts, and counsel, the concomitant increase in burden on party and judicial
resources, and the opportunity for federal-state coordination, coupled with most defendants’ change
in position to now support centralization, tip the balance in favor of creating an MDL.7
Centralization will facilitate a uniform and efficient pretrial approach to this litigation, eliminate
duplicative discovery, prevent inconsistent rulings on Daubert and other pretrial issues, and conserve
the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. ‘While we do not discount the case
management-related difficulties that a multi-product and multi-defendant MDL such as this may
entail, the unusual circumstances presented convince us that at this juncture, formal centralization
under Section 1407 is the best course. As we repeatedly have stated, a transferee judge can employ
any number of techniques, such as establishing separate discovery and motion tracks, to manage
pretrial proceedings efficiently. See, e.g., In re: AndroGel Prods. Liab. Litig., 24 F. Supp. 3d 1378,

We note that our denial of centralization in Proton-Pump I did not foreclose the filing of
this second motion for centralization. That earlier denial also does not preclude us from reaching
a different result here. We will do so only rarely, however, where a significant change in
circumstances has occurred. See In re: Plavix Mktg., Sates Practices & Prods. Liab. Litig. (No. II),
923 F. Supp. 2d 1376, 1378 (J.P.M.L 2013).
AstraZeneca represents that it has been sued in 87 state court PPI actions —85 in Delaware,
one in Missouri, and one in Ohio.
6

Thevarietyofallegedkidneyinjuries arguablyhas diminished, as mostplaintiffs allegethat
they suffer from CKD. In addition, the status of defendants as competitors (and defendants’
concerns regarding trade secrets, etc.) may be less of an issue in this litigation, given that most (and
possibly all) of these medications no longer have patent protection.
See In re: Lipitor (Atorvastatin Calcium) Mktg., Sales Practices & Prods. Liab. Litig. (No.
II), 997 F. Supp. 2d 1354, 1356 (J.P.M.L. 2014) (granting follow-up motion for centralization, where
number of related actions had grown from 29 in thirteen districts to over 225 in more than 40
districts; the number of involved plaintiffs’ firms had grown as well; and the Panel had been
informed of related cases pending in at least three state courts).

-41379-80 (J.P.M.L. 201 4)•8 As with any MDL, the transfereejudge has substantial discretion to refine
the litigation’s parameters. Id. at 1380 (“[T]he transferee judge retains wide discretion as to how
the MDL should be defined. .“). If, after close examination, she determines that Section 1407
remand of any claims or actions involving a particular defendant or PPI is appropriate, procedures
are available to accomplish this with minimal delay. Id. (citing Panel Rule 10.1).
.

.

In opposing centralization and arguing that if centralized, any cases and claims against it
should be excluded from the MDL, Takeda relies heavily on our decision in Proton-Pump I, and
further argues that it is sued in only a minority of the 161 actions. For the reasons stated above, we
conclude that Proton-Pump I does not control the outcome here. And, although it is true that
AstraZeneca is sued in far more actions than Takeda, a significant number ofactions are “mixed use”
cases in which the plaintiffs allege use of more than one PPI, and sue Takeda and one or more other
PPI manufacturers, including AstraZeneca.9 The prospect of additional cases against Takeda does
not seem far-fetched.’° Given these circumstances, including the seemingly indivisible nature of
plaintiffs’ alleged injuries in the “mixed use” cases, we decline to carve out from the MDL cases or
claims against Takeda.”

8

In Androgel, we ordered industry-wide centralization of all cases alleging injuries
arising from the use of testosterone replacement therapies on the grounds that a number of plaintiffs
had “used more than one testosterone replacement therapy,” and that “[t]he other approaches
proposed by the parties—centralizing only [cases involving AbbVie’s Androgel product] (and
perhaps transferring ‘combination cases’), separating and remanding claims against certain
manufacturers, or transferring only claims relating to testosterone replacement gels—could prove
too procedurally complicated, might result in a de facto industry-wide centralization as cases
involving multiple drugs become part of the MDL, or may require successive motions for
centralization.” In re: Androgel Prods. Liab. Litig., 24 F. Supp. 3d at 1379. These same
circumstances are present in the PPI cases now before us.
For example, the Middle District of Florida Lear plaintiff alleges use, at various
times, of AstraZeneca’s Nexium and Prilosec PPIs, Takeda’s Prevacid PPI, and Pfizer’s Protonix
PPI; the District of Idaho Buzbee plaintiff alleges use ofNexium and Prevacid; the Western District
of Louisiana Crandell plaintiff alleges use of Nexium, Prevacid, and Prilosec; the District of New
Jersey Luzzo plaintiff alleges use ofNexium and Prevacid; and the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Miller plaintiff alleges use of Nexium and Prevacid.
10

Sales of Prevacid, which came to market in 1995, reportedly exceeded $3 billion
annually at one time.
Whether claims against NCH, which markets Prevacid 24HR, should be included in
the MDL is best addressed through our conditional transfer order process, as NCH is sued only in
an Eastern District of Tennessee tag-along action. Similarly, whether future claims against the three
other Novartis entities Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics,
(continued...)
—

-5We select the District of New Jersey as transferee district for this litigation. More than 60
of the 161 constituent actions afready are pending in D. New Jersey (more than in any other district).
The district is a relatively convenient venue, and enjoys the support of most plaintiffs, as well as the
AstraZeneca, Pfizer, and P&G defendants. Further, centralization in the Disthct of New Jersey
enables us to assign the litigation to Judge Claire C. Cecchi, an experienced transferee judge who
already is actively managing the PPI cases filed in that district. We are confident that the judge will
steer this litigation on a prudent course.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the actions listed on Schedule A and pending outside
the District of New Jersey are transferred to the District of New Jersey, and, with the consent of that
court, assigned to the Honorable Claire C. Cecchi for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings.

PANEL ON MULTDISTRICT LITIGATION

Sarah S. Vance
Chair
Charles R. Breyer
Ellen Segal Huvelle
Catherine D. Perry

Lewis A. Kaplan
R. David Proctor

‘1(...continued)
Inc. and Novartis Institute for Biomedical Research, Inc. should be transferred to the MDL is not
properly before us, as those entities currently are not sued in any ofthe constituent or tag-along cases
(having been voluntarily dismissed from the one action in which they previously were named).
—

IN RE: PROTON-PUMP INHIBITOR PRODUCTS
LIABILITY LITIGATION (NO. II)

MDL No. 2789

SCHEDULE A
District of Arizona
DAVIS v. TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS USA INCORPORATED, ET AL.,
C.A. No. 2:16-04485
Eastern District of California
THOMAS v. TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, NC., ET AL.,
C.A. No. 1:16-01566
COSTAMAGNA, ET AL. v. THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY, ET AL.,
C.A. No. 2:17-00409
Middle District of Florida
LEAR v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:17-00240
District of Idaho
BUZBEEv. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, ETAL., C.A. No. 3:17-00174
Central District of illinois
MULLEN v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:17-01220
Northern District of Illinois
WEITERv. TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, NC., ETAL., C.A. No. 1:16-11199
PARKER v. TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY LIMITED, ET AL.,
C.A. No. 1:17-03764

Southern District of Illinois
COLEMAN, ET AL. v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, ET AL.,
C.A. No. 3:17-00130
ROSENSTEEL, ET AL. v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, ET AL.,
C.A. No. 3:17-0013 1
DRAVLAND, JR. v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, ET AL.,
C.A. No. 3:17-00133

-A2MDL No. 2789 Schedule A (Continued)

RICHARDSON v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, ET AL.,
C.A. No. 3:17-00406
MCGILL, El AL. v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, El AL.,
C.A. No. 3:17-00461
WINTERS, SR. v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS, LP, ET AL.,
C.A. No. 3:17-00535
District of Kansas
KOON v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, El AL., C.A. No. 2:16-02605
DONECKER v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, ET AL.,
C.A. No. 6:17-01082
Eastern District of Kentucky
CARPENTER v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, ET AL.,
C.A. No. 0:16-00159
ROBERTS v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, ET AL., C.A. No.5:17-00117
LOCKARD, ET AL. v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, ET AL.,
C.A. No. 6:17-00125
THACKER, ET AL. v. THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY, El AL.,
C.A. No. 7:17-00078
Western District of Kentucky
LOWE v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, ET AL., C.A. No. 5:17-00078
Eastern District of Louisiana
LABICHE, El AL. v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, ET AL.,
C.A. No. 2:16-15893
JOHNSON, El AL. v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, El AL.,
C.A. No. 2:16-16424
TILLMAN v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, El AL., C .A. No.2:16-17742
BALES v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, El AL., C.A. No. 2:16-17744
SELF v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, El AL., C.A. No. 2:16-17746
LEBLANC v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, El AL., C.A. No.2:16-17748
EDWARDS v. ASTRAZENECAPHARMACEUTICALS LP, ETAL., C.A. No.2:16-17750
DONALD v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, El AL., C.A. No. 2:16-17753
MCCOY v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS, LP, El AL., C.A. No.2:16-17903

-A3MDL No. 2789 Schedule A (Continued)

ELLIS v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, ET AL, C.A. No. 2:16-17904
ROGERS v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, ETAL., CA. No.2:16-17906
HARTS, ET AL. v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, ET AL.,
C.A. No. 2:17-02298
WILLIAMS v. PROCTOR & GAMBLE COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:17-03972
MORRIS v. ASTRAZENECA LP, ET AL, C.A. No. 2:17-04804
BRUNET v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:17-05114
Middle District of Louisiana
DAVIS v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:16-00686
SMITH v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS, LP, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:16-00696
Western District of Louisiana
CAESARv. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, ETAL., C.A. No.2:17-00198
MODICUE v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, ETAL., C.A. No. 6:16-01444
MILLER v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, ET AL., C.A. No. 6:16-01455
CRANDELL v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, ET AL.,
C.A. No. 6:16-01460
BUSH v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, ET AL., C.A. No. 6:17-00669
District of Maine
MCGARR v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:17-00183
District of Maryland
BURCH v. WYETH PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 8:17-00970
Eastern District of Missouri
MILLIGAN v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, El AL., C.A. No. 4:17-01546
Western District of Missouri
GREGG v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, El AL, CA. No. 6:17-03 101

-A4MDL No. 2789 Schedule A (Continued)

District of New Jersey
GOODSTEIN v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, ET AL,
C.A. No. 2:16-05143
SPRATT v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, ET AL, C.A. No. 2:16-05523
BOYD v. ASTRAZENECA LP, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:16-08 121
HUNTER v. ASTRAZENECA LP, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:16-08895
ADKINS v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:17-00194
SAVAGE v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:17-00196
PIERRE v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:17-00198
AUBREY v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:17-00201
GThYARD v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, ET AL., C.A. No.2:17-00202
TONEY v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:17-00203
WATKiNS v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, ET AL., C.A. No.2:17-00204
STEWART v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:17-00206
GRAVES v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:17-00207
SCOTT v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:17-00208
CARRUTHERS v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, ET AL.,
C.A. No. 2:17-002 11
LEE v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:17-00212
WILBURN v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, ET AL, C.A. No.2:17-00213
WILKERSON v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, ET AL.,
C.A. No. 2:17-00215
LAYTONv. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, ETAL., C.A. No.2:17-00216
GUTIERREZ v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, ET AL.,
C.A. No. 2:17-00217
HAWKINS v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, ET AL., C.A. No.2:17-0021 $
HUDSON v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:17-00219
LLOYD v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:17-00500
MASSENGThL v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, ET AL.,
C.A. No. 2:17-00761
GARRISON v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:17-01207
ELLIOTT v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, ET AL., C.A. No.2:17-01413
JAY, ET AL. v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, ET AL.,
C.A. No. 2:17-01606
MUSE v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:17-01870
JONES v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:17-02098
DEVITO v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:17-02465
FOSTER v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:17-02475
LUZZO v. ASTRAZENECA LP, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:17-02567

-A5

-

MDL No. 2789 Schedule A (Continued)

STARKS v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS, LP, El AL., C.A. No. 2:17-02597
PETTIES v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, El AL., C.A. No. 2:17-02700
ROBERTSON v. ASTRAZENECA LP, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:17-02744
PETERSONv. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, El AL., C.A. No.2:17-02999
HENDERSON v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, ET AL.,
C.A. No. 2:17-03056
BOOTHE v. ASIRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, El AL, C.A. No. 2:17-03191
HOLLOWAY v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, ET AL.,
C.A. No. 2:17-03 192
VALENTINE v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, ET AL.,
C.A. No. 2:17-03 193
ALLEN v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, El AL., C.A. No. 2:17-03 197
MORRIS v. ASIRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, El AL., C.A. No. 2:17-03200
KELLEY v. ASIRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, El AL., C.A. No. 2:17-03204
HOUZER v. ASIRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, El AL., C.A. No. 2:17-03207
BOULERv. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, El AL., C.A. No. 2:17-03209
CARROLL v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, El AL., C.A. No. 2:17-03210
HUNTER-MALONE v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, El AL.,
C.A. No. 2:17-03211
KILIAN v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, El AL., C.A. No. 2:17-03265
LANE v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, El AL., C.A. No. 2:17-03302
BOWENS v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, ETAL., C.A. No.2:17-03316
STUKES v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, El AL., C.A. No. 2:17-03343
LAURENT v. ASIRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, El AL., C.A. No. 2:17-03346
ZELLARS v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, El AL., C .A. No.2:17-03364
BREWINGTON v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, El AL.,
C.A. No. 2:17-03365
CHISLEY v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, El AL., C.A. No. 2:17-03366
BERNARD v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, El AL., C.A. No.2:17-03461
MITCHELL v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, El AL., C .A. No.2:17-03467
LYITLE, El AL. v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, El AL.,
C.A. No. 2:17-03562
IACNEAU v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, ET AL., C.A. No.2:17-03591
HOWARD v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, El AL., C.A. No.2:17-03594
JONES, JR. v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, El AL., C.A. No. 2:17-03606
Eastern District of New York
GAGLIO v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICAL LP, El AL., C.A. No. 1:17-02383
HOLBECK v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, El AL., C.A. No.1:17-03192

-A6MDL No. 2789 Schedule A (Continued)

Northern District of New York
HORNFECK v. ASIRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, El AL,
C.A. No. 5:16-01243
Western District of North Carolina
MOORE v. TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:16-00364
Southern District of Ohio
GOMEZ, El AL. v. PROCTER & GAMBLE MANUFACTURING COMPANY,
El AL., C.A. No. 1:17-00340
BURNETT v. ASIRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, El AL., C.A. No.2:16-00894
BUTLER v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, El AL., C.A. No. 2:17-00183
Northern District of Oklahoma
BELLAMY v. TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY LID., El AL,
C.A. No. 4:17-00289
Western District of Oklahoma
ROUNDTREE v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, El AL.,
C.A. No. 5:17-00432
Eastern District of Pennsylvania
COOPER v. ASIRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, El AL., C.A. No. 2:17-00050
STOCKTON v. ASIRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, ET AL.,
C.A. No. 2:17-0005 1
RUSS, El AL. v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, ET AL.,
C.A. No. 2:17-00052
BALL, El AL. v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, El AL.,
C.A. No. 2:17-00053
GARRITY, El AL. v. ASIRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, El AL.,
C.A. No. 2:17-00054
BROOKINS v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, El AL., C .A. No.2:17-00055
VERIREES, El AL. v. IAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY LIMITED,
El AL., C.A. No. 2:17-00079

-A7MDL No. 2789 Schedule A (Continued)

MARTINEZ, El AL. v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, El AL.,
C.A. No. 2:17-00080
PACK v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:17-0008 1
MALLARD, El AL. v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, El AL.,
C.A. No. 2:17-00082
ROBINSON, El AL. v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, El AL.,
C.A. No. 2:17-00083
DONALD v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, El AL., CA. No. 2:17-00084
WILLINGHAM v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, El AL.,
C.A. No. 2:17-00095
ANSON v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, El AL., C.A. No. 2:17-00096
BURNETT, El AL. v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, El AL.,
C.A. No. 2:17-00097
HALL, El AL. v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, El AL.,
C.A. No. 2:17-00098
STAFFORD v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, El AL.,
C.A. No. 2:17-00100
HAMILTON, El AL. v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, El AL.,
C.A. No. 2:17-00101
KENNEDY v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, El AL., C .A. No.2:17-00102
KING, El AL. v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, El AL.,
C.A. No. 2:17-00103
BARTLETT, El AL. v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, El AL.,
C.A. No. 2:17-00104
MILLER, El AL. v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, El AL.,
C.A. No. 2:17-00105
ROMERO, El AL. v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, El AL.,
C.A. No. 2:17-00107
CLAXTONv. ASTRAZENECAPHARMACEUTICALS LP, EIAL., C.A. No.2:17-00138
SWIFT v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, El AL., C.A. No. 2:17-00139
PERDEW v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, El AL., C.A. No. 2:17-00140
SEGURA v. WYETH, LLC, El AL., C.A. No. 2:17-00141
KETCHUM, El AL. v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, El AL.,
C.A. No. 2:17-00142
VALENTINE v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, El AL.,
C.A. No. 2:17-00148
JONES v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, El AL., C.A. No. 2:17-00149
GRIGGS v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, El AL., C.A. No. 2:17-00150
MCDANIEL v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, El AL.,
C.A. No. 2:17-00151

-A8MDL No. 2789 Schedule A (Continued)

LAPOLLA, El AL. v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, El AL.,
C.A. No. 2:17-00152
PARMS v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, El AL., C.A. No. 2:17-00153
ADAMS v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, El AL., C.A. No. 2:17-00154
RUNYONS v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, FT AL., C.A. No. 2:17-00155
NEWELL, El AL. v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, El AL.,
C.A. No. 2:17-00156
RIGGS, El AL. v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, El AL.,
C.A. No. 2:17-00157
WHITAKER, ET AL. v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, ET AL.,
C.A. No. 2:17-00160
District of South Carolina
ALL, El AL. v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, El AL.,
C.A. No. 1:17-00968
HARRIS v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, El AL., C.A. No. 6:17-01045
District of Utah
CLARK v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, El AL., C.A. No. 1:16-00160

Southern District of West Virginia
CHURCH, El AL. v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, El AL.,
C.A. No. 1:16-07910
KREUGER, El AL. v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, FT AL.,
C.A. No. 2:17-02370