Weaver et al v. Eli Lilly & Company et al
Filing
15
CONDITIONAL TRANSFER ORDER by The United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation TRANSFERRING CASE to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, MDL No. 2226.***Civil Case Terminated.(tn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/1/2011)
UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL
on
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
IN RE: DARVOCET, DARVON AND
PROPOXYPHENE PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION
MDL No. 2226
(SEE ATTACHED SCHEDULE)
CONDITIONAL TRANSFER ORDER (CTO−1)
On August 16, 2011, the Panel transferred 17 civil action(s) to the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Kentucky for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings pursuant to 28
U.S.C. §1407. See __F.Supp.2d__ (J.P.M.L. 2011). Since that time, no additional action(s) have
been transferred to the Eastern District of Kentucky. With the consent of that court, all such actions
have been assigned to the Honorable Danny C Reeves.
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 Eastern District of Kentucky and assigned to
Judge Reeves.
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
Eastern District of Kentucky for the reasons stated in the order of August 16, 2011, and, with the
consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Danny C Reeves.
This order does not become effective until it is filed in the Office of the Clerk of the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky. 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:
Aug 31, 2011
Jeffery N. Lüthi
Clerk of the Panel
FILED AND CERTIFIED
LESLIE G. WHITMER, CLERK
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
Date: 8/31/2011
By: C. Dearborn
Deputy Clerk
IN RE: DARVOCET, DARVON AND
PROPOXYPHENE PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION
MDL No. 2226
SCHEDULE CTO−1 − TAG−ALONG ACTIONS
DIST
DIV.
C.A.NO.
CASE CAPTION
ALABAMA NORTHERN
ALN
5
11−01662
Kendrick v. Xanodyne Pharmaceuticals, Inc et al
CALIFORNIA CENTRAL
CAC
2
11−06147
Martha Teran v. Xanodyne Pharmaceuticals Inc
CALIFORNIA EASTERN
CAE
2
11−01498
Niebuhr, et al v. Xanodyne Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
CALIFORNIA NORTHERN
CAN
3
11−03974
Weaver et al v. Eli Lilly &Company et al
FLORIDA SOUTHERN
FLS
9
11−80188
Germain et al v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.
GEORGIA NORTHERN
GAN
1
11−01695
Cross v. Xanodyne Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al
INDIANA NORTHERN
INN
3
11−00071
Gianoli v. Xanodyne Pharmaceuticals Inc
INDIANA SOUTHERN
INS
4
11−00079
HALLAWAY et al v. ELI LILLY AND COMPANY
et al
LOUISIANA EASTERN
LAE
LAE
2
2
11−01000
11−01225
Rogers v. Xanodyne Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Oniate et al v. Eli Lilly and Company et al
LOUISIANA WESTERN
LAW
LAW
5
6
11−00444
11−01225
Juergens v. Xanodyne Pharmaceuticals Inc
Olivier v. Xanodyne Pharmaceuticals Inc
11−00893
Lowe et al v. Xanodyne Pharmaceuticals Inc.
MINNESOTA
MN
0
MISSISSIPPI SOUTHERN
MSS
3
11−00177
Lynch v. Xanodyne Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al
MISSOURI EASTERN
MOE
4
11−01026
Kinter v. MI Holdings, Inc. et al
NEW JERSEY
NJ
2
11−02668
NJ
2
11−03913
TEGTMEIER V. XANODYNE
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
MEEKS v. XANODYNE PHARMACEUTICALS,
INC. et al
10−02907
Daugherty et al v. Xanodyne Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
11−00835
Coney v. Xanodyne Pharmaceuticals Inc et al
OHIO NORTHERN
OHN
4
SOUTH CAROLINA
SC
6
TENNESSEE WESTERN
TNW
2
11−02197
Knight et al v. TEVA Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.
11−01011
Cook v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc et al
11−00093
11−00500
Fuller et al v. Xanodyne Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Simpson v. Qualitest Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al
TEXAS NORTHERN
TXN
3
TEXAS WESTERN
TXW
TXW
1
1
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?