Anderson et al v. Organon USA, Inc. et al

Filing 23

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)

Download PDF
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 on Deborah J. O'Leary Deputy Clerk MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION United States District Court Eastern District of Missouri By: IN RE: NUVARING PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION MDL No. 1964 TRANSFER ORDER 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. 1 Merck & Co., Inc.; Organon International Inc.; Organon Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., LLC; and Organon USA, Inc. 2 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 Chairman 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 LIABILITY LITIGATION MDL No. 1964 SCHEDULE A 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. 3:13-3599 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?