Martin v. Johnson & Johnson Services, Inc et al
Filing
12
MDL CONDITIONAL TRANSFER ORDER (CTO-106) to US District Court for the Northern District of Texas. Signed by Jeffrey N. Luthi for MDL Panel on 11/27/12. (ysS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/27/2012)
Case 3:11-md-02244-K 2244 DocumentFiled 11/27/12 Page Page 1 PageID 2893
Case MDL No. Document 228 890 Filed 11/27/12 1 of 3 of 3
UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL
on
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
IN RE: DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS, INC.,
PINNACLE HIP IMPLANT PRODUCTS
LIABILITY LITIGATION
MDL No. 2244
(SEE ATTACHED SCHEDULE)
CONDITIONAL TRANSFER ORDER (CTO −106)
On May 23, 2011, the Panel transferred 3 civil action(s) to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings pursuant to 28
U.S.C. §1407. See 787 F.Supp.2d 1358 (J.P.M.L. 2011). Since that time, 773 additional action(s)
have been transferred to the Northern District of Texas. With the consent of that court, all such
actions have been assigned to the Honorable James Edgar Kinkeade.
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 Northern District of Texas and assigned to
Judge Kinkeade.
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
Northern District of Texas for the reasons stated in the order of May 23, 2011, and, with the consent
of that court, assigned to the Honorable James Edgar Kinkeade.
This order does not become effective until it is filed in the Office of the Clerk of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Texas. 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:
Nov 27, 2012
Jeffery N. Lüthi
Clerk of the Panel
By s/*PAIGE LESSOR
DEPUTY CLERK
U.S. DISTRICT COURT, NORTHERN
DISTRICT OF TEXAS
November 27, 2012
Case 3:11-md-02244-K 2244 DocumentFiled 11/27/12 Page Page 2 PageID 2894
Case MDL No. Document 228 890 Filed 11/27/12 2 of 3 of 3
IN RE: DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS, INC.,
PINNACLE HIP IMPLANT PRODUCTS
LIABILITY LITIGATION
MDL No. 2244
SCHEDULE CTO−106 − TAG−ALONG ACTIONS
DIST
DIV.
C.A.NO.
CASE CAPTION
CALIFORNIA CENTRAL
CAC
CAC
CAC
2
2
2
12−09367
12−09383
12−09528
Robert Edwards et al v. DePuy Orthopaedics Inc et al
Raymond Turner et al v. DePuy Orthopaedics Inc et al
Paula Clark v. DePuy Orthopaedics Inc et al
CALIFORNIA NORTHERN
CAN
CAN
3
3
12−05495
12−05640
McKeown v. Johnson & Johnson Services, Inc. et al
Martin v. Johnson & Johnson Services, Inc et al
12−01460
Raney et al v. Depuy Orthopaedics, Inc.
CONNECTICUT
CT
3
LOUISIANA EASTERN
LAE
2
12−02719
Jones v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. et al
12−06801
HODGES−NORWOOD v. DEPUY
ORTHOPAEDICS, INC. et al
NEW JERSEY
NJ
2
NEW YORK WESTERN
NYW
NYW
NYW
NYW
NYW
NYW
NYW
NYW
NYW
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
12−01009
12−01010
12−01020
12−01022
12−01049
12−01050
12−01072
12−01073
12−01102
Cochran v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. et al
Colligan et al v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. et al
Korbar v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. et al
McInturff v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. et al
Stec, et al v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. et al
Trippie v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. et al
Imbriano v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. et al
Polichetti, et al v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. et al
Torres v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. et al
Case 3:11-md-02244-K 2244 DocumentFiled 11/27/12 Page Page 3 PageID 2895
Case MDL No. Document 228 890 Filed 11/27/12 3 of 3 of 3
NYW
NYW
NYW
1
6
6
12−01105
12−06605
12−06607
Mashanic et al v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. et al
Wahls et al v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. et al
Weber v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. et al
11−20958
Quinn v. DePuy Orthopaedic, Inc. et al
OHIO NORTHERN
OHN
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?