Huitt v. TEVA Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. et al

Filing 33

MDL ORDER. CASE TRANSFERRED to Northern District of Georgia. ELECTRONIC RECORDS SENT. CASE CLOSED. (Tupolo, A) [Transferred from California Eastern on 1/6/2021.]

Case 1:21-cv-00051-LMM Document 33 Filed 01/05/21 Page 1 of 7

UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL
on
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

IN RE: PARAGARD IUD PRODUCTS
LIABILITY LITIGATION

FILED
Jan 04, 2021
CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MDL No. 2974

TRANSFER ORDER

Before the Panel: Plaintiff in an action pending in the Central District of California
(Traylor) moves under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to centralize this litigation in that district, or, in the
alternative, the Northern District of Georgia, the Western District of Missouri, or the Eastern District
of Louisiana. The litigation consists of 55 actions pending in 31 districts as listed on the attached
Schedule A. The Panel has been notified of more than 25 potentially-related actions. 1
Plaintiff in one of the actions pending in the Northern District of Georgia (Rodriguez)
supports centralization in the Central District of California, or, in the alternative, the Northern
District of Georgia.2 Defendants Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Teva Women’s Health, Inc.,
Teva Women’s Health, LLC, Teva Branded Pharmaceutical Products R&D, Inc., The Cooper
Companies, Inc., and CooperSurgical, Inc., submitted a joint response in opposition to centralization.
If an MDL is created over their objections, defendants argue for centralization in the Southern
District of New York or, in the alternative, the Middle District of Florida or the Southern District
of California.
After considering the arguments of counsel,3 we find that these actions involve common
questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of Georgia will serve the
convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation.
These actions involve common allegations that the Paragard intrauterine device (IUD) has a
propensity to break upon removal, causing complications and injuries, including surgeries to remove
the broken piece of the device, infertility, and pain. The actions thus implicate questions concerning
the device’s development, manufacture, testing, labeling, and marketing. Centralization will avoid

1

These and any other related actions are potential tag-along actions. See Panel Rules
1.1(h), 7.1, and 7.2.
2

In the Notice of Presentation of Oral Argument submitted by the Rodriguez plaintiff’s
counsel, counsel stated that plaintiff supports centralization in the Northern District of Georgia, in
the first instance.
3

In light of the concerns about the spread of COVID-19 virus (coronavirus), the Panel
heard oral argument by video conference at its hearing session of December 3, 2020. See Suppl.
Notice of Hearing Session, MDL No. 2974 (J.P.M.L. Nov. 16, 2020), ECF No. 52.

Case 1:21-cv-00051-LMM Document 33 Filed 01/05/21 Page 2 of 7

-2duplicative discovery and other pretrial proceedings, as well as the possibility of inconsistent rulings
on Daubert motions and other pretrial matters. Given the number of involved actions and districts,
alternatives to centralization do not appear practicable.
In opposing centralization, defendants argue that the named defendants vary somewhat from
action to action. They point out, for example, that a number of plaintiffs have sued not only the past
and present holders of the New Drug Application (NDA) for Paragard,4 but also the parent
corporations of those entities (i.e., Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., and The Cooper Companies,
Inc.). These differences, however, appear to be relatively insignificant and susceptible to early
resolution. They are unlikely to pose significant or ongoing management problems for the transferee
judge.
Defendants also argue that plaintiffs’ claims (specifically, their failure-to-warn, defective
design, and manufacturing defect claims) fail as a matter of law. The Panel, however, has no
authority to make such an assessment. See In re Kauffman Mutual Fund Actions, 337 F. Supp. 1337,
1339-40 (J.P.M.L. 1972) (“The framers of Section 1407 did not contemplate that the Panel would
decide the merits of the actions before it and neither the statute nor the implementing Rules of the
Panel are drafted to allow for such determinations.”); see also In re Air Crash over the Southern
Indian Ocean, on Mar. 8, 2014, 190 F. Supp. 3d 1358, 1360 (J.P.M.L. 2016) (“Plaintiffs are, to some
extent, asking the Panel to pre-judge the merits of these actions—something we are neither
authorized nor inclined to do.”).
Defendants further argue that each of the involved cases will turn on unique, plaintiffspecific issues, including, for example, whether the plaintiff’s healthcare provider would have
prescribed Paragard for the plaintiff if the device had come with different warnings. As the Panel
previously has observed, however, “[a]lmost all injury litigation involves questions of causation that
are case- and plaintiff-specific. Those differences are not an impediment to centralization where
common questions of fact predominate.”5 In re Xarelto (Rivaroxaban) Prods. Liab. Litig., 65
F.Supp.3d 1402, 1403 (J.P.M.L. 2014); see also In re Profemur Hip Implant Prods. Liab. Litig., —
F. Supp. 3d —, 2020 WL 4670695, at *2 (J.P.M.L. Aug. 7, 2020) (same).
Finally, defendants contend that creation of an MDL would lead to the filing of numerous
non-meritorious cases that will evade individualized scrutiny, thereby creating pressure on

4

As explained by defendants, Teva Women’s Health, Inc., held the Paragard NDA
from November 10, 1995 to August 11, 2017; Teva Women’s Health, LLC, held the NDA from
August 12, 2017 to November 1, 2017; and CooperSurgical, Inc., acquired the NDA on November
2, 2017.
5

In re Xarelto (Rivaroxaban) Prods. Liab. Litig., 65 F. Supp. 3d 1402, 1403 (J.P.M.L.
2014) (centralizing 21 actions (more than 30 tag-alongs)); see also In re Profemur Hip Implant
Prods. Liab. Litig., — F. Supp. 3d —, 2020 WL 4670695, at *2 (J.P.M.L. Aug. 7, 2020)
(centralizing 41 actions (21 tag-alongs)) (same).

Case 1:21-cv-00051-LMM Document 33 Filed 01/05/21 Page 3 of 7

-3defendants to settle. The Panel has rejected essentially this same argument on multiple occasions,
and does so again here. See, e.g., In re Xarelto, 65 F. Supp. 3d at 1405 (“Nor are we persuaded by
defendants’ related argument that an MDL will generate the filing of voluminous claims without due
diligence by plaintiffs’ counsel. The Panel often has observed that ‘[t]he response to such concerns
more properly inheres in assigning all related actions to one judge committed to disposing of
spurious claims quickly.’”) (quoting In re Seroquel Prods. Liab. Litig., 447 F. Supp. 2d 1376, 1378
(J.P.M.L. 2006)); see also In re Cook Med., Inc., IVC Filters Mktg., Sales Practices & Prods. Liab.
Litig., 53 F. Supp. 3d 1379, 1381 (J.P.M.L. 2014) (“T]he transferee court handling several cases in
an MDL likely is in a better position—and certainly is in no worse position than courts in multiple
districts handling individual cases—to properly address meritless claims. There are many tools a
transferee court may use to accomplish this task. And importantly, if defendants believe plaintiffs'
counsel are filing frivolous claims, it is incumbent upon defense counsel to bring that concern to the
attention of the transferee court, and to propose a process to identify and resolve such claims.”).
We select the Northern District of Georgia as the transferee district. This litigation is
nationwide in scope. More than 80 actions are pending across the country in over three dozen
districts. As the parties themselves acknowledge, no one district stands out as the geographic focal
point, and all cases are at an early stage. The Northern District of Georgia, where six constituent
actions are pending, is a convenient, readily accessible forum. Judge Leigh Martin May, to whom
we assign the litigation, is an experienced jurist who has not yet had the opportunity to preside over
an MDL. We are confident that she will steer this litigation on a prudent course.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the actions listed on Schedule A and pending outside
the Northern District of Georgia are transferred to the Northern District of Georgia, and, with the
consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Leigh Martin May for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings.

PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

Karen K. Caldwell
Chair
ATTEST: A TRUE COPY
CERTIFIED THIS

Dec 29 2020
Date: __________________________
JAMES N. HATTEN, Clerk

s/R. Bachelor
By: ____________________________
Deputy Clerk

Catherine D. Perry
Matthew F. Kennelly
Roger T. Benitez

Nathaniel M. Gorton
David C. Norton
Dale A. Kimball

Case 1:21-cv-00051-LMM Document 33 Filed 01/05/21 Page 4 of 7

IN RE: PARAGARD IUD PRODUCTS
LIABILITY LITIGATION

MDL No. 2974

SCHEDULE A
District of Arizona
SMITH v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA INCORPORATED, ET AL.,
C.A. No. 2:20-01675
Central District of California
TRAYLOR v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., ET AL.,
C.A. No. 2:19-10824
HALPERIN v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., ET AL.,
C.A. No. 2:19-10825
RILEY v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:20-00005
WENGER v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:20-07550
Eastern District of California
HUITT v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:20-00954
Middle District of Florida
LEPINE v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 8:20-02002
TREDWAY v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., ET AL.,
C.A. No. 8:20-02087
Northern District of Florida
BRANCH v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 4:20-00378
Southern District of Florida
GENOSIER v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., ET AL.,
C.A. No. 0:20-61957
Northern District of Georgia
PLENDL v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:20-03666
SPENCER v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., ET AL.,
C.A. No. 1:20-03667
TATUM v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:20-03668
MCCLARTY v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., ET AL.,

Case 1:21-cv-00051-LMM Document 33 Filed 01/05/21 Page 5 of 7

- A2 C.A. No. 1:20-03719
LEWIS v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:20-03942
RODRIGUEZ v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., ET AL.,
C.A. No. 1:20-03945
District of Idaho
UPTON v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:20-00022
Northern District of Illinois
RENELLA v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:20-05193
Southern District of Illinois
PARKER v. COOPERSURGICAL, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:20-00494
Eastern District of Louisiana
ARIAS v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:20-02261
District of Maryland
WHITE v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS, US., INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:20-02435
Eastern District of Michigan
SCHOENFELD v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS, USA, INC., ET AL.,
C.A. No. 2:20-12366
AL-QAWIE v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS, USA, INC., ET AL.,
C.A. No. 4:20-12248
District of Minnesota
KRUZEL v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 0:19-03182
WAGONER-TROXEL v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., ET AL.,
C.A. No. 0:20-01871

Case 1:21-cv-00051-LMM Document 33 Filed 01/05/21 Page 6 of 7

- A3 Western District of Missouri
BURRELL v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 4:20-00687
WARREN v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 4:20-00744
SMITH v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 4:20-00746
MENDE v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 4:20-00747
District of New Mexico
HEGARTY v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:20-00970
RENARD v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS, USA, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:20-00809
Northern District of New York
JOHNSON v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:20-01019
Southern District of New York
LEWIS v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS, USA, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:20-04048
MELENDEZ v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS, USA, INC., ET AL.,
C.A. No. 1:20-06683
HARNISH v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS, USA, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 7:20-05942
ROJAS v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS, USA, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 7:20-06448
Eastern District of North Carolina
BARRETT v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 5:20-00442
Southern District of Ohio
DESELMS v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:20-00938
HOLLEY v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:20-04210
Eastern District of Pennsylvania
FERRELL v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:20-04483
Middle District of Pennsylvania
GARGBER v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:20-01529
SHANK v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:20-01536

Case 1:21-cv-00051-LMM Document 33 Filed 01/05/21 Page 7 of 7

- A4 District of South Carolina
BOWERS v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 6:20-03250
Middle District of Tennessee
ROUTT v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:19-00103
Eastern District of Texas
MOORE, ET AL. v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., ET AL.,
C.A. No. 1:20-00369
Northern District of Texas
BIBBS v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:20-02979
Southern District of Texas
PEREZ v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS, USA, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:20-00212
BARCELO v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 4:20-00017
District of Utah
WALLIS v. TEVA WOMEN'S HEALTH, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:19-00148
REITH v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:19-00994
JOHNSON v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:20-00586
Eastern District of Virginia
MCINTOSH v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., ET AL.,
C.A. No. 1:20-00921
Western District of Washington
RAY v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:20-01384
Eastern District of Wisconsin
WEDDLE v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:20-00585
BENOTCH v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:20-01296