CALDWELL v. SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORPORATION

Filing 16

MEMORANDUM AND/OR OPINION RE: MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE. SIGNED BY HONORABLE HARVEY BARTLE, III ON 5/18/2011. 5/19/2011 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(tomg, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ISAIAS COLON MALDONADO, a
minor, by Frances Maldonado,
et al.
v.
SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORP.
d/b/a GLAXOSMITHKLINE

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION

NO. 11-2812

---------JASMINE CALDWELL, a minor,
by Denine Caldwell and Jason
Caldwell, as Parents and
Natural Guardians
v.
SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORP.
d/b/a GLAXOSMITHKLINE

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION

NO. 11-2813

---------JESSE DEWITT, a minor,
by Summer Jenkings, as
Parent and Natural Guardian

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

v.
SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORP.
d/b/a GLAXOSMITHKLINE

CIVIL ACTION

NO. 11-2814

---------ELIZABETH SEDLACEK, a minor,
by Robin Lucas, as
Parent and Natural Guardian
v.
SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORP.
d/b/a GLAXOSMITHKLINE

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

----------

CIVIL ACTION

NO. 11-2815

CHARLES STOKES, a minor,
by Wendy Springer, as
Parent and Natural Guardian

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

v.
SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORP.
d/b/a GLAXOSMITHKLINE

CIVIL ACTION

NO. 11-2816

---------VICTORIA CHANDLER, a minor,
by Julie L. Hill,
Parent and Natural Guardian

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

v.
SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORP.
d/b/a GLAXOSMITHKLINE

CIVIL ACTION

NO. 11-2817

---------JACOB VOORHEES, a minor,
by Tiffany Voorhees and
Scott Voorhees, as
Parents and Natural Guardians
v.
SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORP.
d/b/a GLAXOSMITHKLINE

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION

NO. 11-2818

---------PATRICK WELSH, a minor,
by Barbara Welsh, as
Guardian

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

v.
SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORP.
d/b/a GLAXOSMITHKLINE

CIVIL ACTION

NO. 11-2819

---------MASON JASON YUEILL, a minor,
by Michael J. Yueill, et al.
v.
SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORP.
d/b/a GLAXOSMITHKLINE

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
-2-

CIVIL ACTION

NO. 11-2820

---------MARION HOPE CHANDLER, a minor, :
by Julie L. Hill,
:
Parent and Natural Guardian
:
:
v.
:
:
SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORP.
:
d/b/a GLAXOSMITHKLINE
:

CIVIL ACTION

NO. 11-2821

---------NAOMI CHANDLER, a minor,
by Trenice Chandler, et al.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:

v.
SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORP.
d/b/a GLAXOSMITHKLINE

CIVIL ACTION

NO. 11-2822

---------SAMUEL NOAH ELLISON, a minor,
by Julia Ann Ellison, as
Parent and Natural Guardian
v.
SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORP.
d/b/a GLAXOSMITHKLINE

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION

NO. 11-2823

---------KYLA HODNETT, a minor,
by Eve Hodnett, as
Parent and Natural Guardian

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

v.
SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORP.
d/b/a GLAXOSMITHKLINE

CIVIL ACTION

NO. 11-2824

---------ROSS ANGELY PORTALATINMENDEZ, a minor, by
Carmen M. Mendez-Maldonado
and Juan Portalatin, as
Parents and Natural Guardians

:
:
:
:
:

-3-

CIVIL ACTION

:
:
:
:
:

v.
SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORP.
d/b/a GLAXOSMITHKLINE

NO. 11-2825

---------SARAH WATTS, a minor,
by Lester Watts and
Tammy Watts, as
Parents and Natural Guardians
v.
SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORP.
d/b/a GLAXOSMITHKLINE

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION

NO. 11-2826

---------ALLISON KEEFE, a minor,
by Cynthia Keefe and
Stanley A. Keefe, as
Parents and Natural Guardians
v.
SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORP.
d/b/a GLAXOSMITHKLINE

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION

NO. 11-2827

---------JENNIFER SCHAFFTER, a minor,
by Debra Petty, as
Parent and Natural Guardian
v.
SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORP.
d/b/a GLAXOSMITHKLINE

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION

NO. 11-2828

---------BROOKE BABICH, a minor,
by Bruce Babich, as
Parent and Natural Guardian
v.
SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORP.
d/b/a GLAXOSMITHKLINE

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
----------4-

CIVIL ACTION

NO. 11-2829

ARIANNA SMART, a minor,
by Angela Smart, et al.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:

v.
SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORP.
d/b/a GLAXOSMITHKLINE

CIVIL ACTION

NO. 11-2830

---------MASON ANDREW STEINBECK, a minor,:
by MIKELANN STEINBECK,
:
Parent and Natural Guardian
:
:
v.
:
:
SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORP.
:
d/b/a GLAXOSMITHKLINE
:

CIVIL ACTION

NO. 11-2831

---------TANNER A. WIELAND, a minor,
by CHRISTINA WIELAND, et al.
v.
SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORP.
d/b/a GLAXOSMITHKLINE

:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION

NO. 11-2832

MEMORANDUM
Bartle, C.J.

May 18, 2011

Before the court are the motions to consolidate the
above cases before Judge Timothy J. Savage for the purpose of
deciding the pending motions of plaintiffs to remand these
actions to the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County.
defendant opposes the motions.

The

Plaintiff in each case sued SmithKline Beecham Corp.
d/b/a GlaxoSmithKline ("GSK") in the state court for personal
injuries related to defendant's drugs Paxil paroxetine
hydrochloride ("Paxil") or Paxil CR ("Paxil CR") (collectively
-5-

"Paxil") prescribed to treat depression, obsessive-compulsive
disorder, panic disorders, social anxiety, post-traumatic stress
disorder, and generalized anxiety disorder in adults.

Defendant

thereafter removed these cases to this court on the ground of
diversity of citizenship.

Plaintiffs, all citizens of

Pennsylvania, thereafter filed motions to remand on the ground
that the principal place of business of GSK was in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania and not in Delaware where GSK is incorporated.
Plaintiffs argue that GSK's nerve center is in Philadelphia.
See, Hertz Corp. v. Friend, --- U.S. ---, 130 S. Ct. 1181 (2010).
In the fall of 2010, similar motions to consolidate
were filed in connection with six Paxil cases brought against
GSK.

After review of the complaints and approval of the judges

to whom those six cases were randomly assigned, the undersigned,
in his capacity as Chief Judge, consolidated them by an Order
dated October 7, 2010 before Judge Timothy J. Savage for the
purpose of deciding the remand motions only.

The consolidation

before one judge was clearly in the interest of judicial economy
since the remand issue was identical in each case, the defendant
was the same in each case, and plaintiffs had alleged the same
type of claim for relief in each.

Significantly at that time,

Judge Savage had not decided any remand motion in a Paxil case.1
We now have before us another wave of Paxil cases with
motions to remand.

The remand issue is the same here as in the

1. In contrast, Judge Mary A. McLaughlin had previously decided
a remand motion in White v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 2010 U.S.
Dist. Lexis 79520.
-6-

earlier cases.

The issue of conserving scarce judicial resources

is even more compelling than in the fall of 2010, now that there
are 21 actions for decision.
We disagree with defendant that it is unfair to
transfer the motions to Judge Savage, who is extremely familiar
with the issue involved and has already ruled on the motions in
other Paxil cases.

We note that there was no outcry from

defendant or plaintiffs when the first consolidation order was
entered.

We see no basis for an outcry now.

Of course, the

situation might be different if Judge Savage had decided a remand
motion before the initial consolidation order, and a party
appeared to be engaged in judge shopping in seeking to have
subsequent remand motions placed before him.
not what is happening here.

That, however, is

Simply because Judge Savage ruled on

the earlier remand motions, when his rulings occurred after the
court's October 7, 2010 consolidation order, is not a valid
reason to refrain from consolidating the pending motions before
him.
The undersigned has advised each judge that he or she
is free to retain any assigned case for all purposes and
specifically to determine the remand motion rather than having it
determined by Judge Savage.

None has chosen to do so.

Accordingly, the above actions will be consolidated
before Judge Timothy J. Savage for purposes of deciding the
remand motions only.

-7-