Boyd v. C R Bard Incorporated

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedMarch 6, 2020
Docket2:18-cv-02319
StatusUnknown

This text of Boyd v. C R Bard Incorporated (Boyd v. C R Bard Incorporated) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Arizona primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Boyd v. C R Bard Incorporated, (D. Ariz. 2020).

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 IN RE: Bard IVC Filters Products No. MDL 15-02641-PHX-DGC Liability Litigation, 10 AMENDED SUGGESTION OF REMAND 11 AND TRANSFER ORDER (THIRD) 12 13 14 This multidistrict litigation proceeding (“MDL”) involves personal injury cases 15 brought against Defendants C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. 16 (collectively, “Bard”). Bard manufactures and markets medical devices, including 17 inferior vena cava (“IVC”) filters. The MDL Plaintiffs have received implants of Bard 18 IVC filters and claim they are defective and have caused Plaintiffs to suffer serious injury 19 or death. 20 The MDL was transferred to this Court in August 2015 when 22 cases had been 21 filed. Doc. 1. More than 8,000 cases had been filed when the MDL closed on May 31, 22 2019. Docs. 18079, 18128. Thousands of cases pending in the MDL have settled or are 23 near settlement. See Docs. 16343, 19445, 19798, 21167, 21410. The remaining cases no 24 longer benefit from centralized proceedings. 25 On August 20, 2019, the Court suggested the remand of 35 cases that were 26 transferred to this MDL by the United States Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation 27 (the “Panel”), and transferred more than 500 cases that were directly filed in the MDL to 28 appropriate districts. Doc. 19899 at 2-6, 34-59. The Court suggested the remand of 1 another case and transferred nearly 400 cases on October 17, 2019. Doc. 20672 2 at 2-4, 32-48. 3 In updated reports on the settlement status of cases, the parties identify 4 approximately 1,500 pending cases that are not likely to settle. Docs. 21406, 21426, 5 21410. These cases are now subject to remand or transfer. 6 The cases listed on Schedule A should be remanded to the transferor courts 7 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407(a). See Doc. 21410-1 (Am. Ex. A). The Court therefore 8 provides this Suggestion of Remand to the Panel. The cases listed on Schedule B, which 9 were directly filed in this MDL, will be transferred to appropriate districts pursuant to 10 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). See Docs. 21410-2, -10 (Am. Exs. B, C). To assist the courts that 11 receive these cases, this order will describe events that have taken place in the MDL. 12 A copy of this order, along with the case files and materials, will be available to courts 13 after remand or transfer. The cases listed on Schedule C will be unconsolidated from the 14 MDL, will remain in the District of Arizona, and will be assigned to the undersigned 15 judge. See Docs. 21410-2, -7 (Am. Exs. B, I); 21426 at 3-4. 16 I. Suggestion of Remand. 17 A. Remand Standard. 18 The power to remand MDL cases rests solely with the Panel. 28 U.S.C. § 1407(a); 19 see Lexecon Inc. v. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, 523 U.S. 26, 28 (1998). 20 The Panel typically relies on the transferee court to suggest when remand is appropriate. 21 See J.P.M.L. Rule 10.1(b)(i); In re Motor Fuel Temperature Sales Practices Litig., 22 No. 07-MD-1840-KHV, 2012 WL 1963350, at *1 (D. Kan. May 30, 2012). Indeed, the 23 Panel “is reluctant to order a remand absent the suggestion of the transferee judge[.]” 24 J.P.M.L. Rule 10.3(a); see In re Regions Morgan Keegan Sec., Derivative & ERISA 25 Litig., No. 2:09-md-2009-SHM, 2013 WL 5614285, at *2 (W.D. Tenn. Feb. 28, 2013). 26 The transferee court may suggest remand when a case is “ready for trial, or . . . would no 27 longer benefit from inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.” 28

2 1 In re Multi-Piece Rim Prods. Liab. Litig., 464 F. Supp. 969, 975 (J.P.M.L. 1979); see 2 In re TMJ Implants Prods. Liab. Litig., 872 F. Supp. 1019, 1038 (D. Minn. 1995). 3 B. The Panel Should Remand the Cases Listed on Schedule A. 4 The primary purposes of this MDL – coordinated pretrial discovery and resolution 5 of common issues – have been fulfilled. All common fact and expert discovery has been 6 completed. The Court has also resolved many Daubert motions and Defendants’ 7 summary judgment motion based on preemption, as well as other summary judgment and 8 in limine motions in the bellwether cases. Six bellwether jury trials were scheduled, three 9 were held, a fourth settled on the eve of trial, one was resolved by summary judgment, 10 and one was dropped when Plaintiffs decided it would not provide helpful information. 11 The MDL cases listed on Schedule A are not likely to settle soon and no longer 12 benefit from centralized proceedings. The remaining case-specific issues are best left to 13 the transferor courts to resolve. The Court therefore suggests that the Panel remand the 14 cases on Schedule A to the transferor courts for further proceedings. See Doc. 21410-1 15 (Am. Ex. A); see also In re TMJ Implants, 872 F. Supp. at 1038 (suggesting remand of 16 cases that no longer benefited from consolidated pretrial proceedings). 17 II. Transfer Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). 18 A. Transfer Standard. 19 Section 1404(a) provides that “[f]or the convenience of parties and witnesses, in 20 the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or 21 division where it might have been brought or to any district or division to which all 22 parties have consented.” 23 B. The Direct-Filed Cases Listed on Schedule B Will Be Transferred. 24 Not all MDL cases were transferred to the Court by the Panel. Pursuant to Case 25 Management Order No. 4 (“CMO 4”), many cases were filed directly in the MDL 26 through use of a short form complaint. Doc. 363 at 3 (as amended by Docs. 1108, 1485). 27 Plaintiffs were required to identify in the short form complaint the district where venue 28 would be proper absent direct filing in the MDL. See id. at 7. CMO 4 provides that,

3 1 upon the MDL’s closure, each pending direct-filed case shall be transferred to the district 2 identified in the short form complaint. Id. at 3. 3 Pursuant to § 1404(a), the Court will transfer the cases listed on Schedule B to 4 the districts identified in the short form complaints or to the districts where the filters 5 were implanted based on information provided in plaintiff profile forms. See Docs. 6 21410-2, -10 (Am. Exs. B, L); 21426 at 2-3; see also In re Biomet M2a Magnum Hip 7 Implant Prods. Liab. Litig., No. 3:12-MD-2391, 2018 WL 7683307, at *1 (N.D. Ind. 8 Sept. 6, 2018) (transferring cases under § 1404(a) where they would “no longer benefit 9 from centralized proceedings[] and the remaining case-specific issues are best left to 10 decision by the courts that will try the cases”).1 Defendants’ right to challenge venue and 11 personal jurisdiction upon transfer is preserved. See Docs. 19899 at 4-6, 20672 at 4, 12 21426 at 4. 13 III. The MDL Proceedings. 14 A summary of the MDL proceedings is provided below to assist courts on remand, 15 if ordered by the Panel, and courts receiving transfers under § 1404(a). CMOs, discovery 16 orders, and other significant rulings are listed in Exhibit 1. The status of the remaining 17 case-specific discovery and other pretrial issues in individual cases should be addressed 18 by the courts receiving the cases on remand or transfer. 19 A. Plaintiffs’ Claims and the Pleadings. 20 The IVC is a large vein that returns blood to the heart from the lower body. An 21 IVC filter is a small device implanted in the IVC to catch blood clots before they reach 22 the heart and lungs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr
518 U.S. 470 (Supreme Court, 1996)
In Re TMJ Implants Products Liability Litigation
872 F. Supp. 1019 (D. Minnesota, 1995)
In Re Multi-Piece Rim Products Liability Litigation
464 F. Supp. 969 (Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, 1979)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Boyd v. C R Bard Incorporated, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boyd-v-c-r-bard-incorporated-azd-2020.