Wiedeman v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. et al

Filing 29

MDL ORDER Transferring Case to the Northern District of Ohio. Signed by MDL on 9/27/2012. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - EDS)

Case MDL No. 2197 Document 1501 Filed 09/27/12 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL
on
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

IN RE: DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS, INC., ASR HIP IMPLANT
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION

MDL No. 2197

TRANSFER ORDER

Before the Panel: Pursuant to Panel Rule 7.1, plaintiffs in 21 actions listed on Schedule A move
to vacate our orders that conditionally transferred their respective actions to MDL No. 2197.
Responding defendants1 appearing in one or more actions 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. 2197, 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 Northern District of Ohio was an appropriate Section 1407 forum for actions sharing
factual questions arising from alleged injuries from DePuy’s recalled ASR XL Acetabular Hip System.
See In re DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., ASR Hip Implant Prods. Liab. Litig., 753 F.Supp.2d 1378
(J.P.M.L. 2010). These actions all involve injuries from implantation of DePuy ASR hip implants, 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. 2197. Plaintiffs instead base their arguments against transfer primarily on the pendency of
motions to remand their respective actions to state court. Plaintiffs in these actions can present their
motions for remand to the transferee judge.2 See, e.g., In re Ivy, 901 F.2d 7 (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).

1

DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., and DePuy International Ltd. (collectively DePuy); Johnson &
Johnson International, Johnson & Johnson Management Ltd., Johnson & Johnson Medical Ltd.,
Johnson & Johnson Services, Inc., and Johnson & Johnson; Chesapeake Surgical, Ltd.; William G.
Macari and Macari Medical Inc.; Precision Instruments, Inc.; Andy Seaman.
2

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 MDL No. 2197 Document 1501 Filed 09/27/12 Page 2 of 3

-2IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, these actions are transferred
to the Northern District of Ohio and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable David
A. Katz for inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

_________________________________________
John G. Heyburn II
Chairman
Kathryn H. Vratil
Barbara S. Jones
Marjorie O. Rendell

W. Royal Furgeson, Jr.
Paul J. Barbadoro
Charles R. Breyer

Case MDL No. 2197 Document 1501 Filed 09/27/12 Page 3 of 3

IN RE: DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS, INC., ASR HIP IMPLANT
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION

MDL No. 2197

SCHEDULE A

District of Maryland
Paul K. Wood, II, et al. v. Johnson & Johnson, et al., C.A. No. 1:12-01572
Doris G. Wynn, et al. v. Johnson & Johnson, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 1:12-01997
Barbara Benfield v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 8:12-01601
Eva MacGregor v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 8:12-01842
District of Montana
Sue Malletta v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 9:12-00098
District of Nevada
Sheila I. Glaser v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 2:12-00895
Genevieve H. Lee v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 2:12-01164
Hannelore Von Reichow v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 2:12-01165
Amy E. Mills v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 2:12-01166
Carol K. Tobler, et al. v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 2:12-01167
Kim Pate, et al. v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 2:12-01168
Eileen A. Wiedeman v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 2:12-01169
Palma Shehan v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 2:12-01170
Stephanie Santa Cruz v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 2:12-01172
James N. Caron v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 2:12-01173
Nancy G. Hill, et al. v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 2:12-01174
Bruce Fein, et al. v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 2:12-01175
Jeannette E. Davidson v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 2:12-01177
Kipp H. Greengrass v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 2:12-01178
John A. Lanzillotta v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 2:12-01179
District of South Carolina
Michelle S. Felkel v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 3:12-01931