Wiltsey et al v. Organon USA Inc et al
MDL ORDER 1964 TRANSFERRING CASE. (hdjS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/6/2013)
Case: 4:08-md-01964-RWS Doc.Document Filed: 08/06/13 Page: Page 1 of 3 #: 41302
Case MDL No. 1964 #: 1609 1040 Filed 08/06/13 1 of 3 PageID
A TRUE COPY I CERTIFY
James G. Woodward, Clerk
By: David L. Braun
For the United States District Court
Eastern District of Missouri
UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL
IN RE: NUVARING PRODUCTS
MDL No. 1964
Before the Panel: Pursuant to Panel Rule 7.1, plaintiffs in three Northern District of California
actions listed on Schedule A move to vacate our orders that conditionally transferred their respective
actions to MDL No. 1964. Responding defendants1 oppose the motions to vacate.
After considering all argument of counsel, we find these actions involve common questions of
fact with the actions previously transferred to MDL No. 1964, and that transfer will serve the
convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation.
Moreover, transfer is warranted for reasons set out in our order directing centralization. In that order,
we held that the Eastern District of Missouri was an appropriate Section 1407 forum for actions sharing
factual questions arising from alleged injuries from the NuvaRing hormonal contraceptive product. See
In re NuvaRing Prods. Liab. Litig., 572 F. Supp. 2d 1382, 1382-83 (J.P.M.L. 2008). These actions all
involve injuries arising from the use of the NuvaRing product and clearly fall within the MDL’s ambit.
None of the plaintiffs dispute that their actions share questions of fact with actions pending in
MDL No. 1964. Plaintiffs instead base their arguments against transfer primarily on the pendency of
motions to remand their respective actions to state court. Plaintiffs can present their motions for remand
to the transferee judge.2 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).
Merck & Co., Inc.; Organon International Inc.; Organon Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., LLC; and
Organon USA, Inc.
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 wishing
to rule upon the remand motion generally has adequate time in which to do so.
Case: 4:08-md-01964-RWS Doc.Document Filed: 08/06/13 Page: Page 2 of 3 #: 41303
Case MDL No. 1964 #: 1609 1040 Filed 08/06/13 2 of 3 PageID
-2IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, these actions are transferred
to the Eastern District of Missouri and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Rodney
W. Sippel for inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.
PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
John G. Heyburn II
Kathryn H. Vratil
Marjorie O. Rendell
Lewis A. Kaplan
Paul J. Barbadoro
Charles R. Breyer
Sarah S. Vance
Case: 4:08-md-01964-RWS Doc.Document Filed: 08/06/13 Page: Page 3 of 3 #: 41304
Case MDL No. 1964 #: 1609 1040 Filed 08/06/13 3 of 3 PageID
IN RE: NUVARING PRODUCTS
MDL No. 1964
Northern District of California
Nikole Grove, et al. v. Organon USA, Inc., et al., N.D. California, C.A. No. 3:13-02138
Amy Wiltsey, et al. v. Organon USA Inc., et al., N.D. California, C.A. No. 3:13-02144
Juanita Burton v. Organon USA Inc., et al., N.D. California, C.A. No. 4:13-01535
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?