Martin v. Bristol-Myers Company et al

Filing 58

TRANSFER ORDER by the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation TRANSFERRING CASE to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, MDL No. 2809. (tnS) (Filed on 2/13/2018) [Transferred from cand on 2/14/2018.]

Download PDF
UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL on MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION IN RE: ONGLYZA (SAXAGLIPTIN) AND KOMBIGLYZE XR (SAXAGLIPTIN AND METFORMIN) PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION MDL No. 2809 TRANSFER ORDER Before the Panel:* Plaintiffs in a Northern District of California action (Williams) move under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to centralize actions involving heart failure and other injuries arising from the use of two drugs that are used in the treatment of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in the Northern District of California. The litigation currently consists of 41 actions1 pending in 23 districts, as listed on Schedule A. Since the filing of the motion for centralization, the parties have notified the Panel of 43 additional actions2 pending in 26 districts. Plaintiffs in five actions support the Section 1407 motion in its entirety. Plaintiff in the firstfiled Eastern District of Kentucky action (Taylor) supports centralization in the Northern District of California or, alternatively, the Eastern District of Kentucky. Defendants Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., and McKesson Corp. oppose centralization and, alternatively, suggest that the Southern District of California be selected as the transferee district. If that district is not available, then the defendants suggest centralization in the Eastern or Western Districts of Kentucky or the Northern District of Georgia. On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing session held, we find that these actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization under Section 1407 in the Eastern District of Kentucky will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. All actions share numerous factual questions, inasmuch as plaintiffs allege that the use of Onglyza or Kombiglyze XR caused them or their decedent to develop heart failure or other conditions such as congestive heart failure, myocardial infarction and/or cardiovascular injury. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings (particularly on such matters as preemption of plaintiffs’ claims and Daubert rulings); and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. * Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle took no part in the decision of this matter. 1 Three actions were dismissed during the pendency of the motion for centralization. 2 These actions, and any other related actions, are potential tag-along actions. See Panel FILED AND CERTIFIED Rules 1.1(h), 7.1 and 7.2. ROBERT R. CARR, CLERK U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY Date: By: 02/09/18 Michelle Sliter Deputy Clerk -2Defendants oppose transfer by arguing that plaintiffs’ allegations are supported by a single study (the SAVOR study), which itself supports only claims regarding heart failure – not the various other injuries (congestive heart failure, acute hypoxic respiratory failure, coronary artery disease and cardiovascular injury) plaintiffs allege. They argue that, as a consequence, these cases likely will turn on unique issues that are applicable to, at most, a small subset of other cases. Defendants also assert that informal coordination among the actions is a feasible alternative to centralization. These objections are insufficient to overcome the significant advantages that centralization will afford. To date, there are 84 cases pending in over 30 districts. Informal coordination among 84 cases scattered across the nation does not seem feasible (even if, as defendants argue, there are a dozen cases pending in the District of New Jersey that are ripe to be dismissed for failure to serve defendants). Defendants concede that most cases involve allegations of heart failure, which is squarely in line with the results of the SAVOR study and the subsequent label change for Onglyza and Kombiglyze XR in April 2016. If defendants are convinced that plaintiffs’ claims regarding heart failure or other injuries lack scientific support, then centralization affords them a single forum in which to seek summary judgment, which might be applied to other similar cases. Centralization also will provide a single forum where disputes about the sufficiency of defendants’ past and any supplemental document productions, as well as about expert discovery, can be handled in a streamlined fashion. Given that the drugs at issue here were marketed nationwide, and no action or group of actions is significantly advanced, any number of potential transferee districts would be appropriate. We select the Eastern District of Kentucky, a relatively accessible district that is supported by defendants and certain plaintiffs, as transferee district for this litigation. The longest-pending action (Taylor) is proceeding apace in this district. We are confident that Chief Judge Karen K. Caldwell will steer this litigation on a prudent course. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, the actions listed on Schedule A and pending outside the Eastern District of Kentucky are transferred to the Eastern District of Kentucky and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Karen K. Caldwell for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with the actions pending in that district and listed on Schedule A. PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION Sarah S. Vance Chair Marjorie O. Rendell Lewis A. Kaplan Catherine D. Perry Charles R. Breyer R. David Proctor IN RE: ONGLYZA (SAXAGLIPTIN) AND KOMBIGLYZE XR (SAXAGLIPTIN AND METFORMIN) PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION MDL No. 2809 SCHEDULE A Middle District of Alabama VALLENTINE v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:17!00265 Northern District of Alabama PEOPLES v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 5:17!00101 District of Arizona SETTLE v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:17!01269 Northern District of California WILLIAMS, ET AL. v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:16!07152 MARTIN v. BRISTOL!MYERS COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:17!00661 Northern District of Georgia REID v. BRISTOL!MEYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:17!01503 TURNER v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:17!02782 YORK v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:17!02915 JOHNSON v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:17!02916 District of Idaho CHRISTENSEN v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:17!00321 Northern District of Indiana MILLER v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:17!00330 - A2 Southern District of Indiana COUSINS v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:17!02607 Eastern District of Kentucky BARNES v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:17!00124 TAYLOR, ET AL. v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 5:16!00260 Western District of Kentucky TUCKER v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:17!00268 Eastern District of Louisiana ROSS v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:17!00443 LESTER SPEIGHTS v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:17!07884 Middle District of Louisiana BROWN v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:17!00039 Western District of Louisiana LETELL v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB CO., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:17!00553 District of New Jersey YOUNG v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:17!00347 REEVES, ET AL. v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:17!03024 MITCHELL v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:17!03026 BINNS v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:17!03028 TALTON v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:17!03029 MCAFEE v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:17!03030 GREEN v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:17!03032 ISHMAN v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:17!03033 ATKINS, SR. v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:17!03034 DAY v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:17!03035 - A3 ASENCIO v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:17!03036 SECHLER, ET AL. v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:17!03037 Middle District of North Carolina HOLLAND v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:17!00710 Southern District of Ohio CARPENTER v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:17!00262 Eastern District of Oklahoma HULBERT v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 6:17!00327 District of South Carolina DUBOSE v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 4:17!01695 Eastern District of Tennessee CAMPBELL v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:17!00219 Middle District of Tennessee WILCOX v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:17!01202 Eastern District of Texas WARE v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:17!00111 Northern District of Texas BOLLER v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 4:17!00050 Southern District of Texas DAVILA v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:17!00145 CHESTER v. BRISTOL!MEYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 4:17!00316

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?