Johnson v. Sanofi S.A., et al.
Filing
23
TRANSFER ORDER. CASE TRANSFERRED to the Eastern District of Louisiana. MDL No. 2740. (Robles, S)
Case MDL No. 2740 Document 363 Filed 05/31/17 Page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL
on
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
IN RE: TAXOTERE (DOCETAXEL)
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION
MDL No. 2740
TRANSFER ORDER
Before the Panel:* Plaintiffs in the three actions listed on Schedule A move under Panel
Rule 7.1 to vacate our orders conditionally transferring their actions to MDL No. 2740. Defendants
Sanofi-Aventis U.S., LLC, and Sanofi U.S. Services Inc. oppose the motions to vacate.
After considering the argument of counsel, we find these actions involve common questions
of fact with the actions transferred to MDL No. 2740, and that transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 will
serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the
litigation. Plaintiffs do not dispute that these actions share questions of fact with MDL No. 2740.
Like many of the already-centralized actions, they involve factual questions arising from allegations
that Taxotere (docetaxel), a chemotherapy drug, causes permanent hair loss, that defendants were
aware of this possible side effect and failed to warn patients, and that defendants marketed Taxotere
as more effective than other chemotherapy drugs when other drugs were equally effective without
the associated permanent hair loss. See In re: Taxotere (Docetaxel) Prods. Liab. Litig., MDL No.
2740, __ F. Supp. 3d __, 2016 WL 5845996 (J.P.M.L. Oct. 4, 2016).
In support of the motions to vacate, plaintiffs argue that federal subject matter jurisdiction
is lacking, and plaintiffs’ motions to remand to state court are pending. The Panel has held that
jurisdictional issues do not present an impediment to transfer, as plaintiffs can present these
arguments to the transferee judge.1 See, e.g., In re: Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. Sales Practices Litig.,
170 F. Supp. 2d 1346, 1347-48 (J.P.M.L. 2001).
Jun 15 2017
*
1
Judge Lewis A. Kaplan took no part in the decision of this matter.
Moreover, under Panel Rule 2.1(d), the pendency of a conditional transfer order does not
limit the pretrial jurisdiction of the court in which the subject action is pending. Between the date
a remand motion is filed and the date that transfer of the action to the MDL is finalized, a court
generally has adequate time to rule on a remand motion if it chooses to do so.
Case MDL No. 2740 Document 363 Filed 05/31/17 Page 2 of 3
-2IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the actions listed on Schedule A are transferred to the
Eastern District of Louisiana and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Kurt D.
Engelhardt for inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.
PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
Sarah S. Vance
Chair
Marjorie O. Rendell
Ellen Segal Huvelle
Catherine D. Perry
Charles R. Breyer
R. David Proctor
Case MDL No. 2740 Document 363 Filed 05/31/17 Page 3 of 3
IN RE: TAXOTERE (DOCETAXEL)
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION
SCHEDULE A
Central District of California
17-cv-5832 - N(5) SMITH v. SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S. LLC, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:17-00870
Eastern District of California
17-cv-5833 - N(5) JOHNSON v. SANOFI S.A., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:17-00196
Eastern District of Missouri
17-cv-5834 - N(5)
WHITTED, ET AL. v. SANOFI S.A., ET AL., C.A. No. 4:17-00769
MDL No. 2740
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?