In Re: Stericycle, Inc., Sterisafe Contract Litigation

Filing 4

MEMORANDUM Order Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 8/21/2013. Mailed notice by judge's staff. (srb,)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
IN RE STERICYCLE, INC.

STERISAFE CONTRACT LITIGATION

)
)
)
)
)

No. 13 C 5795
MDL No. 2455

MEMORANDUM ORDER
This Court, having been designated as the transferee judge
under MDL No. 2455, has received confirmation of the final
approval of that designation--and that has occasioned the
transfer to this District Court, and in turn to this Court’s
calendar, of a substantial number of cases from around the
country.

This memorandum order is issued sua sponte to address a

legal issue posed by that designation and the consequent case
transfers.
After this Court had received the assignment, under this
District Court’s random assignment system, of Lyndon Veterinary
Clinic, PLLC v. Stericycle, Inc., No. 13 C 2499, defendant
Stericycle, Inc. (“Stericycle”) filed a motion to dismiss that
case--a motion to which plaintiff’s counsel in the Lyndon case
filed a July 23 memorandum in opposition.

That same procedure

was echoed in the second case filed in this District Court,
Midgley v. Stericycle, Inc., No. 13 C 3448, after that case had
been reassigned to this Court’s calendar on relatedness grounds

under this District Court’s LR 40.4.1

This Court has not had the

opportunity to ascertain whether a like procedure has been
followed in one or more of the numerous cases that have since
come to this Court’s calendar pursuant to the MDL designation.
It is anticipated that, as is typical in MDL cases, a single
consolidated complaint is in the offing, with appropriate
arrangements to be made for the management of the case.

What

this Court does not know, of course, is whether the issues teed
up by the two motions to dismiss referred to earlier will be
equally applicable to that consolidated complaint or, on the
other side of the “v.” sign, whether plaintiffs’ counsel in other
cases transferred here would plan to provide added or different
input to any motions seeking to dismiss their cases.
What appears obvious to this Court is that it would be a
mistake to deal at this time with the pending motions to dismiss
in the Lyndon and Midgley cases (and, of course, in any of the
transferred-in cases that come burdened with like motions).
Instead this Court orders the reinstatement of the previously set
status conference at 9 a.m. August 28, 2013, at which time the
subject addressed here will be a principal part of the agenda.

Date:

August 21, 2013

________________________________________
Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge

1

Because plaintiffs in the two cases were represented by
different lawyers, the briefing was not identical--and this Court
would then have been required to issue separate opinions.
2