Garza et al v. Oreganon USA, Inc. et al
MDL ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE to the Eastern District of Missouri. In Re: Nuvaring Products Liability Litigation MDL No. 1964. (gbaS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/21/2014)
Case: 4:08-md-01964-RWS Doc.Document Filed: 02/18/14 Page: Page 1 of 3 #: 41630
Case MDL No. 1964 #: 1687 1357 Filed 02/18/14 1 of 3 PageID
A TRUE COPY I CERTIFY
James G. Woodward, Clerk
By: David L. Braun
For the United States District Court
Eastern District of Missouri
UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL
IN RE: NUVARING PRODUCTS
MDL No. 1964
Before the Panel:* Pursuant to Panel Rule 7.1, plaintiffs in two Northern District of California
actions listed on Schedule A move to vacate our orders that conditionally transferred their respective
actions to MDL No. 1964. Responding defendants1 oppose the motions to vacate.
After considering all argument of counsel, we find these actions involve common questions of
fact with the actions previously transferred to MDL No. 1964, and that transfer will serve the
convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation.
Moreover, transfer is warranted for reasons set out in our order directing centralization. In that order,
we held that the Eastern District of Missouri was an appropriate Section 1407 forum for actions sharing
factual questions arising from alleged injuries from the NuvaRing hormonal contraceptive product. See
In re NuvaRing Prods. Liab. Litig., 572 F. Supp. 2d 1382, 1382-83 (J.P.M.L. 2008). These actions
involve injuries arising from the use of the NuvaRing product and clearly fall within the MDL’s ambit.
None of the plaintiffs dispute that their actions share questions of fact with actions pending in
MDL No. 1964. Plaintiffs instead base their arguments against transfer primarily on the pendency of
motions to remand their respective actions to state court. Plaintiffs can present their motions for
remand (assuming that plaintiffs wish to refile their remand motions) to the transferee judge.2 See, e.g.,
In re Ivy, 901 F.2d 7, 9 (2nd Cir. 1990); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. Sales Practices Litig., 170
F.Supp.2d 1346, 1347-48 (J.P.M.L. 2001).
Judges Paul J. Barbadoro and Lewis A. Kaplan did not participate in the decision of this matter.
Merck & Co., Inc.; Organon International Inc.; Organon Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., LLC; and
Organon USA, Inc.
After plaintiffs in these actions filed their motion to vacate, the transferor judges denied
plaintiffs’ respective motions to remand without prejudice and stayed the actions pending Section
Case: 4:08-md-01964-RWS Doc.Document Filed: 02/18/14 Page: Page 2 of 3 #: 41631
Case MDL No. 1964 #: 1687 1357 Filed 02/18/14 2 of 3 PageID
-2IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, these actions are
transferred to the Eastern District of Missouri and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the
Honorable Rodney W. Sippel for inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.
PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
John G. Heyburn II
Marjorie O. Rendell
Sarah S. Vance
Charles R. Breyer
Ellen Segal Huvelle
Case: 4:08-md-01964-RWS Doc.Document Filed: 02/18/14 Page: Page 3 of 3 #: 41632
Case MDL No. 1964 #: 1687 1357 Filed 02/18/14 3 of 3 PageID
IN RE: NUVARING PRODUCTS
MDL No. 1964
Northern District of California
Candy Garza, et al. v. Oreganon USA, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 3:13-04988
Ann Asche, et al. v. Organon USA, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 4:13-04986
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?