Butner et al v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al
TRANSFER ORDER Before The United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation TRANSFERRING CASE to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, MDL No. 2385. (tn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/7/2012)
UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL
DEC 0 6 2012
„CLERK. U.S. DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OFILLINOIS
IN RE: PRADAXA (DABIGATRAN ETEXILATE)
8T ST L°U'8 °FF,CE
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION
Thelma Butner, et aL v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., et aL, N.D. California, C.A. No. 3:12-03715
MDL No. 2385
Before the Panel:* Pursuant to Panel Rule 7.1,plaintiff in a Northern District ofCalifornia
action moves to vacate our order that conditionally transferred her action to MDL No. 2385.
Defendant Boehringer IngelheimPharmaceuticals, Inc., opposes the motion.
After considering allargument ofcounsel we findthat this action involvescommon questions
of feet with the actions previously transferred to MDL No. 2385, and that transfer will serve the
convenience ofthe partiesand witnesses andpromote thejust and efficient conduct ofthe litigation.
In our order centralizing this litigation, we held that the Southern District of Illinois was an
appropriateSection 1407 forum for actions sharing factual questions arising out ofallegations that
plaintiffs suffered severe bleedingor other injuries as a result oftaking the drug Pradaxa (dabigatran
etexilate), that defendants did not adequatelywarn prescribing physicians ofthe risks associatedwith
Pradaxa, including the potential for severe or fatal bleeding, and that there is no reversal agent to
counteract Pradaxa's anticoagulation effects. This action involvesvirtually identical allegationsthat
plaintiffsuffered severe bleeding as a result of ingesting Pradaxa and thus fells squarely within the
subject matter of the MDL.
Plaintiffbasesher argument againsttransferon the pendencyofa motion to remand her action
to state court, suggesting that the transferor court should firstdecide the motion. We have repeatedly
held, however, that a motion for remand alone is generallyan insufficientbasis to vacate a conditional
transfer order.1 Plaintiffcan present her motion for remand to the transferee judge. See, e.g., In re
Ivy, 901 F.2d 7, 9 (2d Cir. 1990); In re PrudentialIns. Co. ofAm. Sales Practices Litig., 170 F.
Supp. 2d 1346, 1347-48 (J.P.M.L. 2001).
*Judge Kathryn H. Vratiltook no part in the decision ofthis matter.
1Panel Rule 2.1(d) expresslyprovides that the pendencyofa conditional transfer order does
not limitthe pretrialjurisdiction ofthe 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
wishing to rule upon the remand motion generally has adequate time in which to do so. Here, Judge
Thelton E. Hendexson specificallydeclined to rule on plaintiffs remand motion prior to centralization.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, this action is transferred
to the Southern District of Illinois and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable
David R. Hemdon for inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.
TRICJ OF ILLINOIS
PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
G. Heybum II
W. Royal Furgeson, Jr.
Marjorie O. Rendell
Lewis A. Kaplan
Paul J. Barbadoro
Charles R. Breyer
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?