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)

Download PDF
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?