Clarke et al v. Organon USA Inc. et al
Filing
37
MDL ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE to the Eastern District of Missouri (MDL No. 1964). (cpS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/1/2013) Modified on 10/1/2013 (cpS, COURT STAFF).
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
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?