Robinson v. Johnson & Johnson et al

Filing 61

TRANSFER ORDER. CASE TRANSFERRED to the Southern District of West Virginia. MDL No. 2327. (Robles, S) [Transferred from California Eastern on 12/10/2015.]

UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL
on
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

IN RE: ETHICON, INC., PELVIC
REPAIR SYSTEM PRODUCTS
LIABILITY LITIGATION

MDL No. 2327

TRANSFER ORDER

Before the Panel:* Plaintiffs in the five actions listed on Schedule A move under Panel Rule
7.1 to vacate our order conditionally transferring their actions to MDL No. 2327. Responding
defendant Ethicon, LLC (Ethicon) opposes the motion to vacate.
The actions before the Panel, along with 59 others, were originally filed as one action in
California state court and were severed and removed to the Central District of California.1 We
recently transferred the other 59 actions to MDL No. 2327, over plaintiffs’ objections. See Transfer
Order, MDL No. 2327 (J.P.M.L. Oct. 13, 2015), ECF No. 2190.
After considering the argument of counsel, we find these actions involve common questions
of fact with the actions previously transferred to MDL No. 2327, and that transfer under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1407 will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient
conduct of the litigation. Plaintiffs do not dispute that their actions share questions of fact with MDL
No. 2327. Like many of the already-centralized actions, the actions at bar involve factual questions
arising from allegations that Ethicon and related entities defectively designed, manufactured, and
marketed pelvic surgical mesh products, resulting in serious injuries, and that defendants failed to
provide appropriate warnings and instructions regarding the risks and dangers posed by the devices.
See In re: Ethicon, Inc., Pelvic Repair Sys. Prods. Liab. Litig., et al., 844 F. Supp. 2d 1359 (J.P.M.L.
2012).
In support of the motion to vacate, plaintiffs argue that removal of these actions was
improper, and the transferor courts should be allowed to rule on pending jurisdictional motions. But
plaintiffs’ remand motions already have been denied by the Central District of California. Moreover,
*

Judge Marjorie O. Rendell and Judge Lewis A. Kaplan took no part in the decision of this

matter.
1

All actions were placed on the same conditional transfer order, but the five actions now
before the Panel were remanded to state court, and the conditional transfer order as to those actions
was vacated. The original transferor judge in the Central District of California since has vacated his
order of remand, denied another motion to remand to state court, and transferred, under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1404(a), the actions to the five different district courts in which they now are pending.

-2the Panel often has held that jurisdictional issues do not present an impediment to transfer, as
plaintiffs can present these arguments to the transferee judge. See, e.g., In re: Prudential Ins. Co.
of Am. Sales Practices Litig., 170 F. Supp. 2d 1346, 1347-48 (J.P.M.L. 2001). Plaintiffs also argue
that transfer will cause them inconvenience and delay. We have found that, while transfer of a
particular action might inconvenience some parties to that action, transfer often is necessary to
further the expeditious resolution of the litigation taken as a whole. See In re: Crown Life Ins.
Premium Ins. Litig., 178 F. Supp. 2d 1365, 1366 (J.P.M.L. 2001).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the actions listed on Schedule A are transferred to the
Southern District of West Virginia and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable
Joseph R. Goodwin for inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

12/9/2015
Sarah S. Vance
Chair

s/ Tina Smith Charles R. Breyer
R. David Proctor

Ellen Segal Huvelle
Catherine D. Perry

IN RE: ETHICON, INC., PELVIC
REPAIR SYSTEM PRODUCTS
LIABILITY LITIGATION

MDL No. 2327

SCHEDULE A

Eastern District of Arkansas
SKELTON v. ETHICON INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 4:15-00648
Eastern District of California
ROBINSON v. JOHNSON AND JOHNSON, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:15-01601
Southern District of Florida
CARMONA v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, ET AL. , C.A. No. 1:15-23913
Eastern District of Missouri
BUCHANAN v. JOHNSON AND JOHNSON, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:15-00184
Western District of Washington
ORSI v. JOHNSON AND JOHNSON, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:14-05754