Mugnolo v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. et al

Filing 20

MDL TRANSFER ORDER MDL 2244: Transferring case to the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas. Signed by The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, on 10/13/15. (jlmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/13/2015) Modified on 10/14/2015 (jlm, COURT STAFF).

Case 3:11-md-02244-K 2244 DocumentFiled 10/13/15 Page 1Page 1 of 3 10366
Case MDL No. Document 566 1627 Filed 10/13/15 of 3 PageID

UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL
on
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
IN RE: DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS, INC., PINNACLE HIP
IMPLANT PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION

CERTIFIED A TRUE COPY
ERTIFIED
COP
KAREN MITCHELL, CLER
AREN
CLERK
By s/*THOMAS DREW
W
DEPUTY CLERK
U.S. DISTRICT COURT, NORT
THERN
DISTRICT OF TEXAS
October 13, 2015

MDL No. 2244

TRANSFER ORDER
Before the Panel: Plaintiffs in the two actions listed on the attached Schedule A move under
Panel Rule 7.1 to vacate the Panel’s order conditionally transferring their respective actions to MDL No.
2244. Defendants DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., DePuy Synthes, Inc., and Johnson & Johnson Services,
Inc., oppose the motions.
After considering the argument of counsel, we find that both actions involve common questions
of fact with the actions previously transferred to MDL No. 2244, and that transfer under 28 U.S.C. §
1407 will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct
of the litigation. Moreover, transfer is warranted for the reasons set out in our order directing
centralization. In that order, we held that the Northern District of Texas was an appropriate Section
1407 forum for actions sharing factual questions arising from alleged injuries from DePuy’s Pinnacle
Acetabular Cup System hip implants. See In re: DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., Pinnacle Hip Implant
Prods. Liab. Litig., 787 F.Supp. 2d 1358 (J.P.M.L. 2011). Both actions involve injuries related to
DePuy Pinnacle Acetabular Cup System hip implants and fall within the MDL’s ambit.
Plaintiffs in the Central District of California Timms action do not dispute that their action shares
questions of fact concerning Pinnacle hip implants with actions pending in MDL No. 2244. Plaintiff
instead bases her arguments against transfer primarily on the pendency of her motion to remand the
action to state court and her preference for having the Central District of California rule on the motion
to remand. These arguments are unconvincing. Plaintiff can present her renewed motion for remand
to the transferee judge.1 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).
In the Northern District of California Mugnolo action, plaintiff allegedly received a Pinnacle hip
implant in a ceramic-on-polyethylene configuration and suffered a dislocation of her hip implant when
a ring locking device broke. Plaintiffs assert that claims regarding this configuration and this specific
mechanism of failure are not present in the MDL. Since the creation of MDL No. 2244, however, the
1

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
generally has adequate time to rule on a remand motion if it chooses to do so. Here, the transferor
judge denied plaintiff’s motion to remand without prejudice to renewal on September 4, 2015.

Case 3:11-md-02244-K 2244 DocumentFiled 10/13/15 Page 2Page 2 of 3 10367
Case MDL No. Document 566 1627 Filed 10/13/15 of 3 PageID

-2Panel has transferred actions involving all configurations of Pinnacle hip implants. Even if the
mechanism of failure of plaintiff’s Pinnacle hip implant is somewhat different, transfer is appropriate
to prevent any overlap in discovery in the MDL and Mugnolo related to, inter alia, the development,
approval, manufacture, marketing and performance of the Pinnacle hip device, particularly with respect
to the Mugnolo plaintiff’s breach of warranty and negligence claims.
We are persuaded that both actions will benefit from the framework provided by the centralized
proceedings for discovery and motion practice. As the litigation progresses, however, if the transferee
judge determines that a given claim or action will no longer benefit from inclusion in MDL No. 2244,
we encourage him to promptly suggest that the Panel remand that action or claim to the transferor court.
See Panel Rule 10.1(b); In re: ClassicStar Mare Lease Litig., 528 F. Supp. 2d 1345, 1347 (J.P.M.L.
2007).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that these actions are transferred to the Northern District of
Texas and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable James E. Kinkeade for inclusion
in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

Sarah S. Vance
Chair
Marjorie O. Rendell
Lewis A. Kaplan
R. David Proctor

Charles R. Breyer
Ellen Segal Huvelle
Catherine D. Perry

Case 3:11-md-02244-K 2244 DocumentFiled 10/13/15 Page 3Page 3 of 3 10368
Case MDL No. Document 566 1627 Filed 10/13/15 of 3 PageID

IN RE: DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS, INC., PINNACLE HIP
IMPLANT PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION

MDL No. 2244

SCHEDULE A
Central District of California
TIMMS, ET AL. v. DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:15!05253
Northern District of California
MUGNOLO v. DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 4:15!02314