In Re Listerine Agent Cool Blue Products Liability Litigation

Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

In Re Listerine Agent Cool Blue Products Liability Litigation

655 F. Supp. 2d 1350, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92171, 2009 WL 3163545

CourtUnited States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

DecidedOctober 1, 2009

DocketMDL 2097

StatusPublished

This text of 655 F. Supp. 2d 1350 (In Re Listerine Agent Cool Blue Products Liability Litigation) 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

In Re Listerine Agent Cool Blue Products Liability Litigation, 655 F. Supp. 2d 1350, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92171, 2009 WL 3163545 (jpml 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER DENYING TRANSFER

ROBERT L. MILLER, JR., Acting Chairman.

Before the entire Panel * : Defendant McNeil-PPC, Inc. (McNeil) has moved, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings of this litigation in the Southern District of California. All plaintiffs oppose centralization.

This litigation currently consists of three actions pending in two districts, two actions in the Southern District of California and one action in the Southern District of Florida.

On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, we find that Section 1407 centralization would not necessarily serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses or further the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. With the California actions proceeding on a consolidated basis, there are essentially only two actions pending in two districts, one of which is now an individual action because class certification was denied. Moreover, the California actions are over two years old and discovery is complete. Defendant has failed to persuade us that any remaining common discovery issues are sufficiently complex and/or numerous to justify Section 1407 transfer in this docket at this time. Alternatives to transfer exist that can minimize whatever possibilities may arise of duplicative discovery and/or inconsistent pretrial rulings. See, e.g., In re Eli Lilly and Company (Cephalexin Monohydrate) Patent Litigation, 446 F.Supp. 242, 244 (J.P.M.L.1978); see also Manual for Complex Litigation, Fourth, § 20.14 (2004).

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

SCHEDULE A

MDL No. 2097 — IN RE: LISTERINE AGENT COOL BLUE PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION

Southern District of California

Adrian Ortiz-Flores, et al. v. McNeil-PPC, Inc., C.A. No. 3:07-678

Jennifer Pointer, etc. v. McNeil-PPC, Inc., C.A. No. 3:08-536

Southern District of Florida

Kayla Hess, et al. v. McNeill-PPC, Inc., C.A. No. 9:09-80840

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

ORDER DENYING TRANSFER

ROBERT L. MILLER, JR., Acting Chairman.

Before the entire Panel * : Defendant McNeil-PPC, Inc. (McNeil) has moved, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings of this litigation in the Southern District of California. All plaintiffs oppose centralization.

This litigation currently consists of three actions pending in two districts, two actions in the Southern District of California and one action in the Southern District of Florida.

On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, we find that Section 1407 centralization would not necessarily serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses or further the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. With the California actions proceeding on a consolidated basis, there are essentially only two actions pending in two districts, one of which is now an individual action because class certification was denied. Moreover, the California actions are over two years old and discovery is complete. Defendant has failed to persuade us that any remaining common discovery issues are sufficiently complex and/or numerous to justify Section 1407 transfer in this docket at this time. Alternatives to transfer exist that can minimize whatever possibilities may arise of duplicative discovery and/or inconsistent pretrial rulings. See, e.g., In re Eli Lilly and Company (Cephalexin Monohydrate) Patent Litigation, 446 F.Supp. 242, 244 (J.P.M.L.1978); see also Manual for Complex Litigation, Fourth, § 20.14 (2004).

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

SCHEDULE A

MDL No. 2097 — IN RE: LISTERINE AGENT COOL BLUE PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION

Southern District of California

Adrian Ortiz-Flores, et al. v. McNeil-PPC, Inc., C.A. No. 3:07-678

Jennifer Pointer, etc. v. McNeil-PPC, Inc., C.A. No. 3:08-536

Southern District of Florida

Kayla Hess, et al. v. McNeill-PPC, Inc., C.A. No. 9:09-80840

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

655 F. Supp. 2d 1350, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92171, 2009 WL 3163545, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-listerine-agent-cool-blue-products-liability-litigation-jpml-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack