J.M.J. et al v. Pfizer, Inc. et al

Filing 48

TRANSFER ORDER (MDL No.2458) TRANSFERRING CASE to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. (slhS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/20/2013)

UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL
on
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

IN RE: EFFEXOR (VENLAFAXINE HYDROCHLORIDE)
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION
J.M.J., et al. v. Pfizer, Inc., et al.,
N.D. California, C.A. No. 3:13-03226
L.C.V., et al. v. Pfizer, Inc., et al.,
S.D. California, C.A. No. 3:13-01686

)
)
)
)

MDL No. 2458

TRANSFER ORDER

Before the Panel:• Pursuant to Panel Rule 7 .1, plaintiffs in these two actions move to vacate
our order conditionally transferring their actions to MDL No. 2342. Defendants Wyeth
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Pfizer International LLC, Pfizer Inc. (collectively Pfizer) oppose the motion
to vacate.
After considering all argument of counsel, we find that these actions share questions of fact
with actions in this litigation previously transferred to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and that
transfer of this action to MDL No. 2458 will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and
promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. Plaintiffs do not dispute that these actions
share questions of fact with MDL No. 2458. Like many of the already-centralized actions, these
actions involve factual questions arising from allegations that plaintiffs' children were born with birth
defects as result oftheir mothers ingesting Effexor during pregnancy. See In re: Effexor (Venlafaxine
Hydrochloride) Prods. Liab. Litig., _ F. Supp. 2d_, 2013 WL 4048494 (J.P.M.L. Aug. 6, 2013).
In support of their motion to vacate, plaintiffs argue that federal subject matter jurisdiction
is lacking, and plaintiffs' motions to remand to state court are pending. The Panel often has held that
jurisdictional issues do not present an impediment to transfer, asp laintiffs can present such arguments
to the transferee judge. 1 See, e.g., In re: Prudential Ins. Co. ofAm. Sales Practices Litig., 170 F.
Supp. 2d 1346, 1347-48 (J.P.M.L. 2001).

• Judge Marjorie 0. Rendell and Lewis A. Kaplan did not participate in the disposition of this
matter.
1

Moreover, under Panel Rule 2. l(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 or other 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.

ATRUE COPY C . TIFI DTO FROM THE RECOR@

:2.

I{.,

f3

-2IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, these actions are
transferred to the Eastern District ofPennsylvania and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the
Honorable Cynthia M. Rufe for inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings
occurring there in this docket.

PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

Chairman
Paul J. Barbadoro
Sarah S. Vance

Charles R. Breyer
Ellen Segal Huvelle