Verduzco et al v. Daiichi Sankyo, Inc. et al
Filing
25
CONDITIONAL ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. IN RE: BENICAR (OLMESARTAN) PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. MDL No.2606. Signed by Jeffery N. Luthi, Clerk of the Panel on 04/16/15. (aaa, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/16/2015)
MDL f\lo. 2606
Document 128
04116/15
1of3
UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL
on
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
IN RE: BENICAR (OLMESARTAN) PRODUCTS
LIABILITY LITIGATION
MDL No. 2606
(SEE ATTACHED SCHEDULE)
CONDITIONAL TRANSFER ORDER (CTO -1)
On April 3, 2015, the Panel transferred 15 civil action(s) to the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1407. See _F.Supp.3d_ (J.P.M.L. 2015). Since that time, no additional action(s) have been
transferred to the District of New Jersey. With the consent of that court, all such actions have been
assigned to the Honorable Robert B. Kugler.
It appears that the action(s) on this conditional transfer order involve questions of fact that are
common to the actions previously transferred to the District of New Jersey and assigned to Judge
Kugler.
Pursuant to Rule 7 .1 of the Rules of Procedure of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation, the action(s) on the attached schedule are transferred under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to the
District of New Jersey for the reasons stated in the order of April 3, 2015, and, with the consent of
that court, assigned to the Honorable Robert B. Kugler.
This order does not become effective until it is filed in the Office of the Clerk of the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey. The transmittal of this order to said Clerk shall be
stayed 7 days from the entry thereof. If any party files a notice of opposition with the Clerk of the
Panel within this 7-day period, the stay will be continued until further order of the Panel.
FOR THE PANEL:
Inasmuch as no objection is
pending at this time, the
stay is lifted.
J
Apr 16, 2015
~#4
J
CLERK'S OFFICE
Jeffery N. Luthi
Clerk of the Panel
UNITfD STATFS
JUDICIAL PANCL ON
MUL 1IOIS I RIC I ll l IGA! ION
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the above and
WILL
By___...._~~~.i...1:1~.c;...i1i.--~~
rv1
No.
Document 128
2 of 3
IN RE: BENICAR (OLMESARTAN) PRODUCTS
LIABILITY LITIGATION
MDL No. 2606
SCHEDULE CT0-1-TAG-ALONG ACTIONS
C.A.NO.
CASE CAPTION
15-00171
Mcallister v. Daiichi Sankyo, Inc. et al
2
15-00192
Love et al v. Daiichi Sankyo, Inc. et al
2
15-00227
Phillips v. Daiichi Sankyo Incorporated et al
ALABAMA MIDDLE
ALM
2
ALABAMA NORTHERN
ALN
ARIZONA
AZ
CALIFORNIA CENTRAL
CAC
2
15-00429
Twila Aldrich v. Daiichi Sankyo, Inc. et al
CALIFORNIA NORTHERN
CAN
3
15-00159
Verduzco et al v. Daiichi Sankyo, Inc. et al
15-21144
15-21145
Kemp v. Daiichi Sankyo, Inc. et al
Freeman v. Daiichi Sankyo, Inc. et al
15-00041
Stirnaman v. Daiichi Sankyo Inc et al
15-00792
Himel et al v. Daiichi Sankyo, Inc. et al
15-00099
Jones v. :paiichi Sankyo, Inc. et al
FLORIDA SOUTHERN
FLS
FLS
1
1
ILLINOIS SOUTHERN
ILS
3
LOUISIANA EASTERN
LAE
2
LOUISIANA MIDDLE
LAM
3
M
f\lo.
3 ot 3
MAINE
ME
2
15-00017
MILLER v. DAIICHI SANKYO INC et al
0
0
15-00160
15-00176
15-00542
Beckjorden, et al. v. Daiichi Sankyo, Inc., et al.
O'Neill v. Daiichi Sankyo, Inc. et al
Deming v. Daiichi Sankyo, Inc. et al
MINNESOTA
MN
MN
MN
0
MISSISSIPPI NORTHERN
MSN
3
15-00026
Matheny v. Daiichi Sankyo, Inc. et al
15-00042
Meyer v. Daiichi Sankyo, Inc. et al
MISSOURI EASTERN
MOE
1
NEW YORK SOUTHERN
NYS
NYS
1
1
15-00287
15-00605
Hogan et al v. Daiichi Sankyo, Inc. et al
Bonanni v. Daiichi Sankyo, Inc. et al
NORTH CAROLINA MIDDLE
NCM
15-00173
PINCKNEY ET AL., V. DAIICHI SANKYO, INC., ET
AL. Pinckney et al v. Daiichi Sankyo, Inc. et al
5
15-00574
Heckaman v. Daiichi Sankyo, Inc. et al
3
14-01950
Manley v. Daiichi Sankyo, Inc. et al
15-00103
McMurray et al v. Daiichi Sankyo, Inc. et al (PLR2)
1
OHIO NORTHERN
OHN
OREGON
OR
TENNESSEE EASTERN
TNE
3
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?