Zaite v. Long et al

Filing 21

CERTIFIED TRANSFER ORDER re MDL 2385. Signed by MDL Panel on 6/5/13. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

.*
UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL

FILED

on

MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

IN RE: PRADAXA (DABIGATRAN ETEXILATE)

J'yH 0 5 2813
CLERK. U.S. DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EAST ST. LOUIS OFFICE

PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION

Kathryn Zaitev. Carla J. Long, et al., D. Nevada,
MDL No. 2385

C.A. No. 2:13-00384

TRANSFER ORDER

>

Before the Panel:* Pursuant to PanelRule7.1, plaintiffina District ofNevada action moves
to vacate our order that conditionally transferred her action to MDL No. 2385. Defendants
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Carla J. Long oppose the motion.

After considering all argument ofcounsel, we find that this action involves common questions
of fact with the actions previously transferred to MDL No. 2385, and that transfer will serve the
convenience of theparties andwitnesses and promote thejust and efficient conduct of thelitigation.
In our order centralizing this litigation, we held that the Southern District of Illinois was an
appropriate Section 1407 forum for actions sharing factual questions arising out of allegations that
plaintiffs suffered severe bleeding orother injuries asa result oftaking the drug Pradaxa (dabigatran
etexilate), that defendants did notadequately warn prescribing physicians of therisks associated with
Pradaxa, including the potential for severe or fatal bleeding, and that there is no reversal agent to
counteract Pradaxa's anticoagulation effects. This action involves virtually identical allegations that
decedent suffered severe bleeding as a result of ingesting Pradaxa and thus falls squarely within the
subject matter of the MDL.

Plaintiffbases herarguments against transferprimarily onthependency ofa motion toremand
theaction to statecourt,suggesting thatthetransferor court should first decide this motion. We have
repeatedly held, however, that a motion for remand alone isgenerally an insufficient basis to vacate
aconditional transfer order.' Plaintiffcanpresent hermotion for remand to thetransfereejudge. See,
e.g., In re Ivy, 901 F.2d 7, 9 (2d Cir. 1990); In re Prudential Ins. Co. ofAm. Sales Practices Litig.,
170 F. Supp. 2d 1346, 1347-48 (J.P.M.L. 2001).

*Judge Kathryn H. Vratiltook no part in the decision of this matter.

1Panel Rule 2.1 (d)expressly provides that the pendency of a conditional transfer order does
notlimit the pretrialjurisdiction ofthecourt 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.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that pursuant to28 U.S.C. § 1407, this action is transferred
to the Southern District of Illinois and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable
David R. Herndon for inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.
PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

OF ILLINOIS

COPY-^

John G. Heyburn II
Chairman

W. Royal Furgeson, Jr.
Marjorie O. Rendell
Lewis A. Kaplan

Paul J. Barbadoro

Charles R. Breyer