Carter v. C. R. Bard, Inc.

Filing 6

ORDER GRANTING 5 Consent Motion to Stay. Matter is STAYED pending a decision on transfer by the MDL Panel. Signed by SENIOR JUDGE MAURICE M PAUL on 2/15/2011. (jws) [Transferred from Florida Northern on 2/24/2011.]

Download PDF
Page 1 of 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA GAINESVILLE DIVISION BARBARA CARTER, Plaintiff, v. CASE NO. 1:11-cv-00015-MP -GRJ CR BARD INC, Defendant. _____________________________/ ORDER This matter is before the Court on Doc. 5, Consent Motion to Stay Pending a Ruling on Transfer by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. This case is one of a number of pending federal cases in which plaintiffs seek relief in connection with the implantation of various models of the Avaulta® Biosynthetic Support System. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the “MDL Panel”) ordered that centralization pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 was appropriate for the litigation concerning allegations of defects in the various models of the Avaulta® Biosynthetic Support System. The MDL Panel transferred and assigned the litigation to Judge Joseph R. Goodwin of the Southern District of West Virginia. In re: Avaulta Pelvic Support Systems Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2187 (S.D.W.V.). Pursuant to Rule 7.1 of the Rules of Procedure of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, Bard has notified the Panel that this case qualifies as a potential “tag-along” action. As a result, the parties expect that the case will soon be transferred to MDL No. 2187 pending in the Southern District of West Virginia. Accordingly, it is hereby Page 2 of 2 ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: 1. The Consent Motion to Stay, Doc. 5, is GRANTED. 2. This matter is STAYED pending a decision on transfer by the MDL Panel. DONE AND ORDERED this 15th day of February, 2011 s/Maurice M. Paul Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge Case No: 1:11-cv-00015-MP -GRJ

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?