Dunn v. Zimmer, Inc.

Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

Dunn v. Zimmer, Inc.

237 F. Supp. 2d 1376, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24236, 2002 WL 31834705

CourtUnited States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

DecidedDecember 11, 2002

DocketMDL-1497

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 237 F. Supp. 2d 1376 (Dunn v. Zimmer, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dunn v. Zimmer, Inc., 237 F. Supp. 2d 1376, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24236, 2002 WL 31834705 (jpml 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER DENYING TRANSFER

WILLIAM TERRELL HODGES,. Chairman.

This litigation consists of seven actions pending as follows: six District of Connecticut actions that have already been consolidated for purposes of discovery, and one additional action pending in the District of Minnesota. Plaintiff in the Minnesota action moves the Panel, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, for an order centralizing this litigation in the District of Connecticut. Zimmer, Inc., the sole or sole remaining defendant in each action, opposes centralization.

On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, the Panel finds that Section 1407 centralization would neither serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses nor further the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. Movant has failed to demonstrate that any common questions of fact and law are sufficiently complex, unresolved and/or numerous to justify Section 1407 transfer in this two-district docket. We note that i) pretrial proceedings have been ongoing in the Connecticut district for over two years, and ii) plaintiff in the Minnesota action is represented by counsel who also represents the Connecticut action plaintiffs. Under these circumstances we are persuaded that alternatives to transfer exist that can minimize whatever possibilities there might be of duplicative discovery and/or inconsistent pretrial rulings. See, e.g., In re Chromated Copper Arsenate (CCA) Treated Wood Products Liability Litigation, 188 F.Supp.2d 1880 (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit.2002); see also Manual for Complex Litigation, Third, § 31.14 (1995).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, for centralization of these seven actions is denied.

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

ORDER DENYING TRANSFER

WILLIAM TERRELL HODGES,. Chairman.

This litigation consists of seven actions pending as follows: six District of Connecticut actions that have already been consolidated for purposes of discovery, and one additional action pending in the District of Minnesota. Plaintiff in the Minnesota action moves the Panel, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, for an order centralizing this litigation in the District of Connecticut. Zimmer, Inc., the sole or sole remaining defendant in each action, opposes centralization.

On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, the Panel finds that Section 1407 centralization would neither serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses nor further the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. Movant has failed to demonstrate that any common questions of fact and law are sufficiently complex, unresolved and/or numerous to justify Section 1407 transfer in this two-district docket. We note that i) pretrial proceedings have been ongoing in the Connecticut district for over two years, and ii) plaintiff in the Minnesota action is represented by counsel who also represents the Connecticut action plaintiffs. Under these circumstances we are persuaded that alternatives to transfer exist that can minimize whatever possibilities there might be of duplicative discovery and/or inconsistent pretrial rulings. See, e.g., In re Chromated Copper Arsenate (CCA) Treated Wood Products Liability Litigation, 188 F.Supp.2d 1880 (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit.2002); see also Manual for Complex Litigation, Third, § 31.14 (1995).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, for centralization of these seven actions is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

237 F. Supp. 2d 1376, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24236, 2002 WL 31834705, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dunn-v-zimmer-inc-jpml-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack