Breeze v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company

CourtDistrict Court, N.D. California
DecidedJuly 8, 2020
Docket3:18-cv-02514
StatusUnknown

This text of Breeze v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company (Breeze v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Breeze v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, (N.D. Cal. 2020).

Opinion

Case MDL No. 2734 Document 316 Filed 07/08/20 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL on MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

IN RE: ABLLIFY (ARIPIPRAZOLE) PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION MDL No. 2734

(SEE ATTACHED SCHEDULE)

CONDITIONAL TRANSFER ORDER (CTO —32)

On October 3, 2016, the Panel transferred 20 civil action(s) to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407. See 232 F.Supp.3d 1342 (J.P.M.L. 2016). Since that time, 58 additional action(s) have been transferred to the Northern District of Florida. With the consent of that court, all such actions have been assigned to the Honorable M. Casey Rodgers. It appears that the action(s) on this conditional transfer order involve questions of fact that are common to the actions previously transferred to the Northern District of Florida and assigned to Judge Rodgers. , Pursuant to Rule 7.1 of the Rules of Procedure of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, the action(s) on the attached schedule are transferred under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to the Northern District of Florida for the reasons stated in the order of October 3, 2016, and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable M. Casey Rodgers. . This order does not become effective until it is filed in the Office of the Clerk of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida. The transmittal of this order to said Clerk shail be stayed 7 days from the entry thereof. If any party files a notice of opposition with the Clerk of the Panel within this 7-day period, the stay will be continued until further order of the Panel.

—— FOR THE PANEL: poring tsi. he LZ a □ ae John W. Nichols Clerk of the Panel □

ped Lore’, b EeCE a £3 gE RE □□ Bayel “ □ □□ bbe ineeies 1, □□□ meency ee islets oF □□□□□ Beat Oy hee

Case MDL No. 2734 Document 316 Filed 07/08/20 Page 2 of 2

IN RE: ABILIFY (ARIPIPRAZOLE) PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION MDL No. 2734

SCHEDULE CTO-32 — TAG-ALONG ACTIONS

DIST DIV. CANO, CASE CAPTION

CALIFORNIA CENTRAL CAC > 1804489 Anarew J Behrman v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company

CALIFORNIA NORTHERN CAN 3 18-025 14 Breeze et al v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company et al CAN 3 18-04928 Mack et al v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company et al CAN 3 18-05016 Novick et al v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company et al CAN 3 18-0502! Corralejo et al v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company et al CAN 3 18-05046 Alford et al v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company et al CAN 3 18-05055 Earp et al v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company et al CAN 4 18—-04806 Crisp et al v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company et al CAN 4 18-0493 1 Marabuto et al v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company et al CAN 4 18-05007 Adams et al v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company et al CAN 4 18-05032 Abraham Jr. et al v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company et

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

Related

In re Abilify (Aripiprazole) Products Liability Litigation
232 F. Supp. 3d 1342 (Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Breeze v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/breeze-v-bristol-myers-squibb-company-cand-2020.