Buyak et al v. Organon USA Inc et al

Filing 23

ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE to Eastern District of Missouri MDL No 1964. (dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/2/2013)

Case: 4:08-md-01964-RWS Doc.Document Filed: 10/01/13 Page: Page 1 of 3 #: 41364
Case MDL No. 1964 #: 1634 1157 Filed 10/01/13 1 of 3 PageID
A TRUE COPY I CERTIFY
James G. Woodward, Clerk
By: David L. Braun
Deputy Clerk
For the United States District Court
Eastern District of Missouri

UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL
on
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

IN RE: NUVARING PRODUCTS
LIABILITY LITIGATION

MDL No. 1964

TRANSFER ORDER

Before the Panel:* Pursuant to Panel Rule 7.1, plaintiffs in two 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 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 (assuming the plaintiffs
in Clarke wish to refile their remand motion) 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).
*

Judge Sarah S. Vance took no part in the decision of this matter.

1

Merck & Co., Inc.; Organon International Inc.; Organon Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., LLC; and
Organon USA, Inc.
2

After plaintiffs in Clarke filed their motion to vacate, the transferor judge denied plaintiffs’ motion to
remand without prejudice when she stayed the action pending Section 1407 transfer. As to plaintiffs in
Buyak, we note that 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: 10/01/13 Page: Page 2 of 3 #: 41365
Case MDL No. 1964 #: 1634 1157 Filed 10/01/13 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
Chairman
Kathryn H. Vratil
Marjorie O. Rendell
Lewis A. Kaplan

Paul J. Barbadoro
Charles R. Breyer

Case: 4:08-md-01964-RWS Doc.Document Filed: 10/01/13 Page: Page 3 of 3 #: 41366
Case MDL No. 1964 #: 1634 1157 Filed 10/01/13 3 of 3 PageID

IN RE: NUVARING PRODUCTS
LIABILITY LITIGATION

MDL No. 1964

SCHEDULE A

Northern District of California
Desirae Buyak, et al. v. Organon USA Inc., et al., C.A. No. 3:13-03128
Talaya Clarke, et al. v. Organon USA, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 4:13-02290