Crawford et al v. Livanova PLC et al

Filing 17

ORDER DENYING TRANSFER re: pldg. (8 in IAS/3:16-cv-00103, 8 in IAS/4:16-cv-00472, 15 in MDL No. 2772, 8 in NCW/3:16-cv-00785, 9 in PAM/1:16-cv-00260, 7 in SC/3:17-cv-00218, 8 in SC/6:16-cv -02286, 8 in SC/6:16-cv-02307, 8 in SC/6:16-cv-02308, 8 in SC/6:16-cv-03128, 8 in SC/6:16-cv-03129, 8 in SC/6:16-cv-03130, 8 in SC/6:16-cv-03131, 8 in SC/6:16-cv-03132, 6 in SC/8:16-cv-02688, 8 in SD/4:16-cv-04175), ( 1 in MDL No. 2772) The motion to transfer, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1407, is DENIEDSigned by Judge Sarah S. Vance, Chair, PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION, on 4/5/2017. Associated Cases: MDL No. 2772, IAS/3:16-cv-00 103, IAS/4:16-cv-00472, NCW/3:16-cv-00785, PAM/1:16-cv-00260, SC/3:17-cv-00218, SC/6:16-cv-02286, SC/6:16-cv-02307, SC/6:16-cv-02308, SC/6:16-cv-03128, SC/6:16-cv-03129, SC/6:16-cv-03130, SC/6:16-cv-03131, SC/6:16-cv-03132, SC/8:16-cv-02688, SD/4:16-cv-04175 (SM)

UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL
on
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

IN RE: SORIN 3T HEATER-COOLER SYSTEM
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION

MDL No. 2772

ORDER DENYING TRANSFER

Before the Panel: Plaintiffs in the District of South Carolina West action move under 28
U.S.C. § 1407 to centralize pretrial proceedings in this litigation in the District of South Carolina.
All responding parties oppose centralization, including plaintiffs in all actions on the motion pending
outside the District of South Carolina and defendants Sorin Group Deutschland GmbH, Sorin Group
USA, Inc., and LivaNova PLC. This litigation consists of fifteen actions pending in five districts,
as listed on Schedule A.1
On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, we conclude that centralization is
not necessary for the convenience of the parties and witnesses or to further the just and efficient
conduct of the litigation. Movants contend that these actions share allegations that the Sorin 3T
Heater-Cooler System contains design and/or manufacturing defects that leave the device susceptible
to bacterial colonization called nontuberculous mycobacterium (NTM) to which patients are exposed
during surgery, posing a risk of injury.
Opponents of centralization argue that unique factual and legal issues will predominate in
this litigation, and that informal coordination is sufficient to minimize any overlap in pretrial
proceedings. We are persuaded that any overlapping pretrial proceedings have been and can
continue to be handled through informal coordination. While there are sixteen actions and potential
tag-along actions pending in six districts, ten of these actions already are pending before a single
judge in the District of South Carolina and are proceeding in a coordinated fashion. Moreover, those
ten actions were brought by just two groups of plaintiffs’ counsel. Of the remaining six actions, four
were brought by the same plaintiffs’ counsel, and the parties to those actions already are working
successfully to minimize overlapping pretrial proceedings by, for example, sharing discovery
produced in multiple actions. In these circumstances, we are not convinced that Section 1407
centralization is necessary for the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. Critically, not a single
party to any of the six actions pending outside the District of South Carolina supports centralization.
See In re: Student-Athlete Name & Likeness Litig., 763 F. Supp. 2d 1379 (J.P.M.L. 2011) (“We find
most persuasive that, of all responding parties, those who would be most affected by
centralization—the District of New Jersey and Eastern District of Tennessee plaintiffs and defendant
Electronic Arts—do not believe that centralization would be beneficial.”). In fact, movants stand
1

Texas.

The Panel also has been notified of an additional action pending in the Western District of

-2alone as the proponents of centralization. We see no reason to disrupt the parties’ successful efforts
at informal coordination when almost all parties agree that Section 1407 centralization would
provide little or no benefit.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion for centralization of these actions is denied.

PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

__________________________________________
Sarah S. Vance
Chair
Marjorie O. Rendell
Lewis A. Kaplan
R. David Proctor

Charles R. Breyer
Ellen Segal Huvelle
Catherine D. Perry

IN RE: SORIN 3T HEATER-COOLER SYSTEM
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION

MDL No. 2772

SCHEDULE A

Southern District of Iowa
CRAWFORD, ET AL. v. LIVANOVA PLC, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:16-00103
PRESCOTT v. LIVANOVA PLC, ET AL., C.A. No. 4:16-00472
Western District of North Carolina
BLEVINS v. LIVANOVA PLC, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:16-00785
Middle District of Pennsylvania
BAKER, ET AL. v. LIVANOVA PLC, C.A. No. 1:16-00260
District of South Carolina
FOSTER v. LIVANOVA PLC, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:17-00218
WEINACKER v. LIVANOVA PLC, ET AL., C.A. No. 6:16-02286
FOWLER, ET AL. v. LIVANOVA PLC, ET AL., C.A. No. 6:16-02307
BAGWELL, ET AL. v. LIVANOVA PLC, ET AL., C.A. No. 6:16-02308
MATTISON v. SORIN GROUP DEUTSCHLAND GMBH, ET AL.,
C.A. No. 6:16-03128
THOMASON, ET AL. v. SORIN GROUP DEUTSCHLAND GMBH, ET AL.,
C.A. No. 6:16-03129
JOHNSON v. SORIN GROUP DEUTSCHLAND GMBH, ET AL.,
C.A. No. 6:16-03130
SMITH v. SORIN GROUP DEUTSCHLAND GMBH, ET AL., C.A. No. 6:16-03131
GILSTRAP, ET AL. v. SORIN GROUP DEUTSCHLAND GMBH, ET AL.,
C.A. No. 6:16-03132
WEST, ET AL. v. LIVANOVA PLC, ET AL., C.A. No. 8:16-02688
District of South Dakota
EISENBERG, ET AL. v. SORIN GROUP DEUTSCHLAND GMBH, ET AL.,
C.A. No. 4:16-04175