Yuan et al v. Lewey et al

Filing 15

ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE to District of New Jersey. MDL 2418 (dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/17/2013)

Download PDF
Case MDL No. 2418 Document 325 Filed 12/13/13 Page 1 of 3 UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL on MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION IN RE: PLAVIX MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION (NO. II) MDL No. 2418 TRANSFER ORDER Before the Panel: • Pursuant to Panel Rule 7.1, plaintiffs in the three actions listed on Schedule A, all ofwhich are pending in the Northern District ofCalifornia, move to vacate our order conditionally transferring the actions to the District ofNew Jersey for inclusion in MDL No. 2418. Responding defendants Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC, Sanofi US Services Inc., and Sanofi-Synthelabo Inc. oppose the motion. In their motion to vacate, plaintiffs principally argue that transfer should not take place unless and until their pending motions for remand to state court are denied. As we frequently have held, however, the pendency of a remand motion is not, as a general matter, a sufficient reason to delay or deny transfer. Under Panel Rule 2.1 (d), the pendency ofa conditional transfer order does not limit the pretrialjurisdiction ofthe court in which the subject action is pending. Between the date a remand motion is filed and the date the Panel finalizes transfer o fthe action to the MDL, a court wishing to rule upon that motion generally has adequate time to do so. After considering all argument ofcounsel, we find that the actions listed on Schedule A involve common questions offact with actions in this litigation previously transferred to MDL No. 2418, and that transfer will serve the convenience o fthe parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. Moreover, transfer is warranted for reasons set out in our original order directing centralization. In that order, we held that the District ofNew Jersey was an appropriate Section 1407 forum for actions "shar[ing] factual issues arising from allegations that the Bristol-Myers and Sanofi defendants falsely touted Plavix as providing superior cardiovascular benefits to those ofaspirin, and knew or should have known, misrepresented, or failed to disclose various serious risks oftaking Plavix (e.g., heart attack, stroke, internal bleeding, or death)." In re: Plavix Mktg., Sales Practices &Prods. Liab. Litig. (No. II), 923 F. Supp. 2d 1376, 1379 (J.P.M.L. 2013). Areviewofthecomplaints in these three actions leaves no doubt that they share multiple factual issues with those already in the MDL. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that pursuant to 28 U.S. C. § 1407, the actions listed on Schedule A are transferred to the District ofNew Jersey, and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Freda L. Wolfson for inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. - \ Judge Marjorie 0. Rendell and Judge Lewis A. Kaplan took no part in the d~_cision of this matter. Case MDL No. 2418 Document 325 Filed 12/13/13 Page 2 of 3 - 2- PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION John G. Heyburn II Chairman Paul J. Barbadoro Sarah S. Vance Charles R. Breyer Ellen Segal Huvelle Case MDL No. 2418 Document 325 Filed 12/13/13 Page 3 of 3 IN RE: PLAVIX MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION (NO. II) SCHEDULE A Northern District of California Vondell Bankert, et al. v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, et al., N.D. California, C.A. No. 3:13-04003 Helen Yuan, et al. v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, et al., N.D. California, C.A. No. 3:13-04010 Philip Lopresti, et al. v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, et al., N.D. California, C.A. No. 3:13-04079 MDL No. 2418

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?