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)

Download PDF
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?