Anderson et al v. Organon USA, Inc. et al
MDL ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE to the Eastern District of Missouri. Signed by the MDL Panel on 12/12/13. (vlkS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/13/2013)
Case MDL No. 1964 Document 1248 Filed 12/13/13 Page 1 of 3
A TRUE COPY I CERTIFY
James G. Woodward, Clerk
UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL
Deborah J. O'Leary
United States District Court
Eastern District of Missouri
IN RE: NUVARING PRODUCTS
MDL No. 1964
Before the Panel:* Pursuant to Panel Rule 7.1, plaintiffs in three 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
the plaintiffs in Bennett wish to refile their remand motion) 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 Marjorie O. Rendell and Lewis A. Kaplan took no part in the decision of this matter.
Merck & Co., Inc.; Organon International Inc.; Organon Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., LLC; and
Organon USA, Inc.
After plaintiffs in Bennett filed their motion to vacate, the transferor judge denied plaintiffs’ motion
to remand without prejudice when he stayed the action pending Section 1407 transfer. As to plaintiffs in
the other two actions, we note that Panel Rule 2.1(d) expressly provides that 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 motion is filed and the date that transfer of the action to the MDL is finalized,
a court wishing to rule upon the remand motion generally has adequate time in which to do so.
Case MDL No. 1964 Document 1248 Filed 12/13/13 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
Paul J. Barbadoro
Sarah S. Vance
Charles R. Breyer
Ellen Segal Huvelle
Case MDL No. 1964 Document 1248 Filed 12/13/13 Page 3 of 3
IN RE: NUVARING PRODUCTS
MDL No. 1964
Northern District of California
Laura Reyes, et al v. Organon USA, Inc., et al., N.D. California, C.A. No. 3:13-3428
Ovion Starnisha Anderson, et al v. Organon USA, Inc., et al., N.D. California, C.A. No.
Heather Carlena Bennett, et al. v. Organon USA, Inc., et al., N.D. California, C.A. No. 3:133606
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?