Weaver v. Pfizer, Inc. et al

Filing 22

MDL ORDER. Case transferred to the District of South Carolina. CASE CLOSED. (Donati, J)

2:14-mn-02502-RMG Date Filed 08/12/14 Entry Number 400 Page 1 of 3
Case MDL No. 2502 Document 484 Filed 08/12/14 Page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL
on
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

FILED
Aug 12, 2014

IN RE: LIPITOR (ATORVASTATIN CALCIUM)
MARKETING, SALESPRACTICES AND PRODUCTS
LIABILITY LITIGATION (NO. II)

CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MDL No. 2502

TRANSFER ORDER
Before the Panel:* Pursuant to Panel Rule 7.1, plaintiffs in three actions move to vacate our
orders conditionally transferring the actions to the District of South Carolina for inclusion in MDL
No. 2502. Defendant Pfizer Inc. opposes the motions.1 The actions, which are listed on the attached
Schedule A, are pending in the Central District of California (one action), the Eastern District of
California (one action), and the Northern District of California (one action).
In their motions to vacate, plaintiffs principally argue that the actions were improperly
removed from California state court. As we frequently have held, however, the pendency of
jurisdictional objections is not, as a general matter, a sufficient reason to delay or deny transfer.
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 the Panel finalizes transfer of the action to the MDL, a court wishing to rule upon
that motion generally has adequate time to do so.
We addressed plaintiffs’ other arguments in our recent order denying motions to vacate filed
by plaintiffs in 81 other California actions, which, like these three actions, were removed on both
Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) “mass action” grounds and diversity grounds. See Transfer Order
(J.P.M.L. June 6, 2014) (ECF No. 443). In particular, we rejected the suggestion that where an
action has been removed on mass action and other grounds, we should assess the reasonableness of
those other grounds. See id. at 1. We held that we lacked such authority. Id. (citing In re Ivy, 901
F.2d 7, 9 (2d Cir. 1990)). In addition, we rejected the suggestion that we reconsider our precedent
holding that CAFA’s prohibition on transfer, under 28 U.S.C. § 1407, of an action removed on mass
action grounds, absent a request by a majority of the plaintiffs therein,2 does not constitute an
impediment to transfer where other grounds for federal jurisdiction also are asserted. See id. at 2
(reaffirming In re: Darvocet, Darvon & Propoxyphene Prods. Liab. Litig., 939 F. Supp. 2d 1376,
1381 (J.P.M.L. 2013)).
*

Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle took no part in the decision of this matter.

1

McKesson Corporation filed a joinder in Pfizer’s opposition as to the Eastern District of
California and Northern District of California actions.
2

See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(11)(C)(i).

2:14-mn-02502-RMG Date Filed 08/12/14 Entry Number 400 Page 2 of 3
Case MDL No. 2502 Document 484 Filed 08/12/14 Page 2 of 3
-2After considering all argument of counsel, we find that these actions involve common
questions of fact with actions previously transferred to MDL No. 2502, and that transfer will serve
the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the
litigation. Moreover, transfer is warranted for the reasons set out in our original order directing
centralization. In that order, we held that the District of South Carolina was an appropriate Section
1407 forum for actions “shar[ing] factual issues arising from common allegations that taking Lipitor
can cause women to develop type 2 diabetes.” See In re: Lipitor (Atorvastatin Calcium) Mktg., Sales
Practices & Prods. Liab. Litig., — F. Supp. 2d —, 2014 WL 661589, at *2 (J.P.M.L. Feb. 18,
2014). Plaintiffs do not dispute that their actions share multiple factual issues with those already in
the MDL.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, these actions are
transferred to the District of South Carolina, and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the
Honorable Richard M. Gergel for inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

John G. Heyburn II
Chairman
Marjorie O. Rendell
Lewis A. Kaplan
R. David Proctor

Charles R. Breyer
Sarah S. Vance

2:14-mn-02502-RMG Date Filed 08/12/14 Entry Number 400 Page 3 of 3
Case MDL No. 2502 Document 484 Filed 08/12/14 Page 3 of 3
IN RE: LIPITOR (ATORVASTATIN CALCIUM)
MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS
LIABILITY LITIGATION (NO. II)
SCHEDULE A
Central District of California
WILLIAMS, ET AL. v. PFIZER, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:14-03477
Eastern District of California
WEAVER v. PFIZER, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:14-00818
Northern District of California
STARK v. PFIZER, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:14-01488

MDL No. 2502