Riels v. Medtronic, Inc., et al
Filing
46
ORDER granting 41 Motion to Remand to Transferor District Court (MDL) and the Court hereby SUGGESTS to the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation that this MDL is functionally concluded and that the cases identified on attached Exhibits A and B be REMANDED to their respective transferor District Courts. The Clerk of this Court is DIRECTED to file a copy of this Order in the docket in each case identified on attached Exhibits A and B, as well as in the docket of MDL 1905, and is further DIRECTED to provide a copy of this Order to the Clerk of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Richard H. Kyle on 11/10/11. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B) (kll)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
IN RE MEDTRONIC, INC. SPRINT
FIDELIS LEADS PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION
MDL NO. 08-1905 (RHK/JSM)
ORDER
This documents relates to:
Stack v. Medtronic, Inc., et al., 08-cv-965
Graziani v. St. Jude Medical, et al., 08-cv-1207
Riels v. Medtronic, Inc., et al., 08-cv-1915
Hayes v. Medtronic, Inc., et al., 08-cv-4739
Richards v. Medtronic, Inc., et al., 09-cv-294
Cooley v. Medtronic, Inc., et al., 09-cv-952
Rosado-Rosado v. Medtronic, Inc., et al., 09-cv-1874
Cruz v. Medtronic, Inc., et al., 09-cv-2117
Vidales v. Medtronic, Inc., et al., 09-cv-3450
Egan-Alford v. Medtronic, Inc., et al., 10-cv-347
Reso v. HCA Health Services, et al., 10-cv-2055
Soderberg v. Medtronic, Inc., et al., 10-cv-2253
Creighton v. Medtronic, Inc., et al., 10-cv-4325
Lawson v. Medtronic, Inc., et al., 10-cv-4841
Foley v. Medtronics, Inc., 11-cv-1589
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Lead Counsel’s Amended Motion to
Remand, seeking an Order suggesting to the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
(“JPML”) that the remaining claims in these actions be remanded to their respective
transferor courts and that this Multidistrict Litigation (“MDL 1905”) be dissolved.
MDL 1905, which concerns alleged defects in Medtronic’s Sprint Fidelis
defibrilator leads (wires), was initiated in this Court pursuant to an initial Transfer Order
from the JPML on February 21, 2008. The JPML created MDL 1905 because
“centralization . . . [would] serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and
promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation,” as dozens of cases regarding the
leads were then pending against Medtronic in federal courts across the country. The
JPML subsequently transferred hundreds of additional cases to MDL 1905 for
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407.
MDL 1905 proceeded with dispositive motion practice in this Court and a
subsequent appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. In the
course of these proceedings, the parties entered into settlement negotiations, ultimately
culminating in a confidential settlement agreement of claims on a case-by-case basis as
the claimant chose. Pursuant to the agreement, Medtronic and virtually all of the MDL
Plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as the “Settling Plaintiffs”) have agreed to compromise
and conclude the MDL and resolve all but a handful of the related cases and claims.
No party has admitted liability for, or the validity of, any claims or defenses
asserted in or related to the MDL in compromising claims or suggesting remand. The
Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee (the “PSC”), Settling Plaintiffs, and Medtronic have
agreed that dissolution of MDL 1905 is in the best interests of the parties and have
requested such dissolution as part of their Settlement.
As can be seen on attached Exhibit A, only 6 out of more than 900 cases
comprising MDL 1905 remain with claims against Medtronic. In addition, as indicated
on attached Exhibit B, only 9 cases with claims against non-Medtronic defendants, but
asserting claims related to Sprint Fidelis leads, remain pending. Given the limited
number of cases left before it and the procedural posture of the litigation, the Court does
not believe that continued centralization in the District of Minnesota would “serve the
-2-
convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of
this litigation.” Any discovery in the remaining cases is unlikely to overlap in substantial
measure, and the issues to be tried in most of those cases are unique.
By Order dated October 26, 2011, the Court permitted any party objecting to
remand to file such objection on or before November 9, 2011. No objections have been
received by the Court.
Based on the foregoing, and all the files, records, and proceedings herein, the
Court finds that MDL 1905 has fulfilled the objectives set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1407 and
that dissolution of this MDL will serve the interests of the parties, judicial economy, and
convenience at this time. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Lead Counsel’s Amended Motion to
Remand is GRANTED, and the Court hereby SUGGESTS to the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation that this MDL is functionally concluded and that the cases
identified on attached Exhibits A and B be REMANDED to their respective transferor
District Courts. The Clerk of this Court is DIRECTED to file a copy of this Order in the
docket in each case identified on attached Exhibits A and B, as well as in the docket of
MDL 1905, and is further DIRECTED to provide a copy of this Order to the Clerk of the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.
Dated: November 10, 2011
s/Richard H. Kyle
RICHARD H. KYLE
United States District Judge
-3-
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?