Major-Mack v. Organon USA, Inc. et al

Filing 23

TRANSFER ORDER by the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation TRANSFERRING CASE to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, MDL No. 1964. (tnS) (Filed on 4/1/2014)

Case MDL No. 1964 Document 1400 Filed 04/01/14 Page 1 of 3
A TRUE COPY I CERTIFY
James G. Woodward, Clerk
By:

UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL
on
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

Deborah J. O'Leary
Deputy Clerk
United States District Court
Eastern District of Missouri

IN RE: NUVARING PRODUCTS
LIABILITY LITIGATION

MDL No. 1964

TRANSFER ORDER

Before the Panel:* Pursuant to Panel Rule 7.1, plaintiffs in four 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 defendants2 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
to the transferee judge (assuming that plaintiffs in all actions except Flourney wish to refile their remand
motions).3 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 Marjorie O. Rendell and Lewis A. Kaplan did not participate in the decision of this
matter.
2

Merck & Co., Inc.; Organon International Inc.; Organon Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., LLC; and
Organon USA, Inc., and Schering Plough Corp.
3

After plaintiffs in three actions filed their motion to vacate, the transferor judges denied
plaintiffs’ respective motions to remand without prejudice and stayed the actions pending Section
1407 transfer.

Case MDL No. 1964 Document 1400 Filed 04/01/14 Page 2 of 3

-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
Chairman
Charles R. Breyer
Ellen Segal Huvelle

Sarah S. Vance

Case MDL No. 1964 Document 1400 Filed 04/01/14 Page 3 of 3

IN RE: NUVARING PRODUCTS
LIABILITY LITIGATION

MDL No. 1964

SCHEDULE A

Northern District of California
MAJOR-MACK V. ORGANON USA, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:13-5421
RIFENBERY, ET AL. V. ORGANON USA, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:13-5463
STEVENS V. ORGANON USA, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:13-5713
FLOURNEY, ET AL. V. ORGANON USA, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:14-37