Gale et al v. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc.
Filing
15
CONDITIONAL TRANSFER ORDER (CTO-280) by MDL Panel TRANSFERRING CASE to the Southern District New York. (slhS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/13/2014) [Transferred from California Northern on 1/28/2014.]
Case MDL No. 2434 Document 431 Filed 01/06/14 Page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL
on
MUL TIDISTRICT LITIGATION
IN RE: MIRENA IUD PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION
MDL No. 2434
(SEE ATTACHED SCHEDULE)
CONDITIONAL TRANSFER ORDER (CTO -28)
On April 8, 2013, the Panel transferred 7 civil action(s) to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1407. See 938 F.Supp.2d 1355 (J.P.M.L. 2013). Since that time, 306 additional action(s)
have been transferred to the Southern District ofNew York. With the consent ofthat court, all such
actions have been assigned to the Honorable Cathy Seibel.
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 Southern District of New York and assigned to
Judge Seibel.
Pursuant to Rule 7.1 of the Rules of Procedure of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Liti!lation, the action(s) on the attached schedule are transferred under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to the
Southern District of New York for the reasons stated in the order of April 8, 2013, and, with the
consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Cathy Seibel.
This order does not become effective until it is filed in the Office of the Clerk of the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York. 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.
Inasmuch as no objection is
pending at this time, the
stay is lifted.
Jan 06, 2014
CLERK'S OFFICE
UNITED STATES
JUDICIAL PANEL ON
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
FOR THE PANEL:
#7-&4?
Jeffery N. LUthi
Clerk of the Panel
Case MDL No. 2434 Document 431 Filed 01/06/14 Page 2 of 3
IN RE: MIRENA IUD PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION
MDL No. 2434
SCHEDULE CT0-28- TAG-ALONG ACTIONS
C.A.NO.
CASE CAPTION
13-02343
Ferguson v. Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals
Incorporated et al
ARIZONA
AZ
4
CALIFORNIA CENTRAL
CAC
2
13-08104
Hailee Paxton et al v. Bayer Healthcare
Pharmaceuticals Inc et al
CALIFORNIA EASTERN
CAE
2
13-02471
Bacque-Alexander v. Bayer Healthcare
Pharmaceuticals Inc.
CALIFORNIA NORTHERN
CAN
3
13-04356
Gale et al v. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc.
ILLINOIS NORTHERN
ILN
1
13-08896
13-09052
ILN
Pearson v. Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et
al
Jones v. Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al
KENTUCKY EASTERN
KYE
5
13-00436
Middleton v. Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
MISSOURI WESTERN
MOW
4
13-01201
Volz v. Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals Inc
JESSEE v. BAYER HEALTHCARE
NEW JERSEY
NJ
2
13-04795
NJ
2
13-04912
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
Case MDL No. 2434 Document 431
NJ
2
13-05207
NJ
2
13-05608
NJ
2
13-06218
NJ
2
13-06430
NJ
2
13-06440
NJ
2
13-06598
NJ
2
13-07262
NJ
2
13-07347
NJ
2
13-07669
Filed 01/06/14 Page 3 of 3
LEWIS v. BAYER HEALTHCARE
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
MAUGHAN v. BAYER HEALTHCARE
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
SIMMONS v. BAYERHEALTHCARE
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
ODOM v. BAYER HEALTHCARE
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
BOOG v. BAYER HEALTHCARE
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
HAYES v. BAYER HEALTHCARE
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
DAVIS v. BAYER HEALTHCARE
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
COLON v. BAYER HEALTHCARE
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
HOSPODARSKY v. BAYER HEALTHCARE
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. et al
BURRUS v. BAYERHEALTHCARE
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. et al
OKLAHOMA NORTHERN
OKN
4
13-00778
Mahmood v. Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
WASHINGTON WESTERN
WAW
2
13-02170
Fife v. Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals Inc.
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?