Wisconsin Masons' Health Care Fund v. Endo Health Solutions, Inc. et al

Filing 32

TRANSFER ORDER re: pldg. (28 in ILN/1:14-cv-04651, 31 in ILN/1:14-cv-05416, 28 in ILN/1:14-cv-06171, 49 in MDL No. 2580, 27 in PAE/2:14-cv-03185, 29 in PAE/2:14-cv-03190, 28 in PAE/2:14- cv-04355), ( 1 in MDL No. 2580) Transferring 3 action(s) to Judge Harry D. Leinenweber in the N.D. Illinois.Signed by Judge Sarah S. Vance, Chair, PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION, on 12/12/2014. Associated Cases: MDL No. 2580, ILN/1:14-cv-04651, ILN/1:14-cv-05416, ILN/1:14-cv-06171, PAE/2:14-cv-03185, PAE/2:14-cv-03190, PAE/2:14-cv-04355 (DP)

UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL
on
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

IN RE: OPANA ER ANTITRUST LITIGATION

MDL No. 2580

TRANSFER ORDER

Before the Panel:* Plaintiff in one action in the Northern District of Illinois moves under 28
U.S.C. § 1407 to centralize this litigation in that district. This litigation currently consists of six
actions pending in two districts, as listed on Schedule A.1 All plaintiffs and defendants2 in the actions
support centralization in the Northern District of Illinois.
On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing session held, we find that these actions involve
common questions of fact, and that centralization will serve the convenience of the parties and
witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. These actions share factual
questions arising out of allegations that defendants Endo and Impax violated federal and state
antitrust laws by excluding generic competition for Endo’s name brand drug Opana ER, an extended
release opioid pain medication. The defendants’ alleged anticompetitive conduct includes engaging
in baseless patent infringement litigation and entering into an anticompetitive reverse payment
agreement in order to prevent generic competitors of Opana ER from entering the market. All of the
actions are putative nationwide class actions on behalf of either direct or indirect purchasers of Opana
ER. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including
with respect to class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the
judiciary. See, e.g., In re: Lidoderm Antitrust Litig., 11 F. Supp. 3d 1344 (J.P.M.L. 2014)
(centralizing six putative class actions premised on allegedly anticompetitive settlement agreements).
We conclude that the Northern District of Illinois is an appropriate transferee district for this
litigation. This district, which has the unanimous support of all plaintiffs and defendants, provides
a geographically central forum for this nationwide litigation that will be convenient and accessible for
the parties and witnesses. Three of the six actions are pending in this district, and two potential tagalong actions also are pending there. Judge Harry D. Leinenweber is an experienced transferee judge,
and we are confident he will steer this litigation on a prudent course.

*

Judge Charles R. Breyer took no part in the decision of this matter.

1

The Panel has been notified of three potentially related actions. These and any other related
actions are potential tag-along actions. See Panel Rules 1.1(h), 7.1 and 7.2.
2

The defendants are Endo Health Solutions Inc., Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc., Penwest
Pharmaceuticals Co. (collectively, Endo) and Impax Laboratories Inc. (Impax).

-2IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the actions listed on Schedule A and pending outside
the Northern District of Illinois are transferred to the Northern District of Illinois and, with the
consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Harry D. Leinenweber for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings with the actions pending there.

PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

Sarah S. Vance
Chair
Marjorie O. Rendell
Ellen Segal Huvelle
Catherine D. Perry

Lewis A. Kaplan
R. David Proctor

IN RE: OPANA ER ANTITRUST LITIGATION

MDL No. 2580

SCHEDULE A

Northern District of Illinois
WISCONSIN MASONS’ HEALTH CARE FUND v. ENDO HEALTH SOLUTIONS, INC.,
ET AL., C.A. No. 1:14-04651
VALUE DRUG COMPANY v. ENDO HEALTH SOLUTIONS, INC., ET AL.,
C.A. No. 1:14-05416
PENNSYLVANIA EMPLOYEES BENEFIT TRUST FUND v. ENDO HEALTH
SOLUTIONS, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:14-06171
Eastern District of Pennsylvania
ROCHESTER DRUG CO-OPERATIVE, INC. v. ENDO HEALTH SOLUTIONS, INC.,
ET AL., C.A. No. 2:14-03185
FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE, MIAMI LODGE 20, INSURANCE TRUST FUND
v. ENDO HEALTH SOLUTIONS, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:14-03190
MASSACHUSETTS BRICKLAYERS & MASONS HEALTH AND WELFARE FUND
v. ENDO HEALTH SOLUTIONS, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:14-04355