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)

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