In Re Mirapex Products Liability Litigation

493 F. Supp. 2d 1376, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45865, 2007 WL 1853953

• Court: United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
• Decided: June 22, 2007
• Docket: 1836
• Status: Published

Opinion

TRANSFER ORDER

D. LOWELL JENSEN, Acting Chairman.

This litigation currently consists of 54 actions pending in the District of Minnesota, and one action pending in each of the following districts: the Northern District of California, the District of Maryland, the Western District of Missouri, and the Western District of Washington. 1 Common defendants in the actions move the Panel, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, for an order centralizing this litigation in either the Southern District of New York or the District of Connecticut. Responding plaintiffs oppose transfer. In the event that the Panel orders centralization over their objections, responding plaintiffs support selection of the District of Minnesota as transferee forum.

On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, the Panel finds that these 58 actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization under Section 1407 in the District of Minnesota will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. All these actions involve common factual allegations concerning the alleged adverse side effects of the drug Mirapex, and the timeliness and adequacy of defendants’ warnings concerning those side effects. Centralization under Section 1407 is necessary in order to eliminate duplicative discovery, prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel and the judiciary.

We conclude that the District of Minnesota is an appropriate transferee forum in this docket because i) this district has the most advanced of the 58 actions; ii) the judge there has had an opportunity to become familiar with the litigation; and iii) Minneapolis is easily accessible.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, the actions in this litigation pending outside the District of Minnesota and listed on Schedule A are transferred to the District of Minnesota and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable James M. Rosenbaum for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with the actions pending in that district and listed on Schedule A.

SCHEDULE A

MDL-1836 —In re Mirapex Products Liability Litigation

Northern District of California

Therese Bottiglieri v. Pfizer Inc., et al., C.A. No. 3:06-3248

District of Maryland

William David Livingston, et al. v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 1:06-1887

District of Minnesota

Gary Selinsky, et al. v. Boehringer In-gelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 0:06-873

Robert M. Zwayer, et al. v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 0:06-874

Michael A. Dubaich, et al. v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 0:06-875

Donald J. Nelsen v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 0:06-876

Larry Webb, et al. v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 0:06-898

Timothy Harms v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 0:06-899

Timothy L. Estep v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 0:06-900

Mary Conway v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 0:06-901

Dennis M. Scharpen, et al. v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 0:06-1206

Gary E. Charbonneau, et al. v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 0:06-1215

Todd R. Cain v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 0:06-1582

Manuel A. Quintela, et al. v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 0:06-1675

Thaddeus R. Fayard v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 0:06-2144

Hylton H. Dodd v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 0:06-2145

Michael W. Averitt, et al. v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 0:06-2194

William F. Courtney, et al. v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 0:06-2546

Richard I. Bloom, et al. v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 0:06-2577

Joyce A. Anderson v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 0:06-2578

Kathleen R. Frye, et al. v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 0:06-2662

Cynthia Harris, et al. v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 0:06-3009

Daniel M. Hayward, et al. v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 0:06-3180

Daniel F. Neal v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 0:06-3182

Peggy J. Bronson v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 0:06-3254

Theresa R. Seaman, et al. v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 0:06-3255

Madeline J. Vingers v. Boehringer In-gelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 0:06-3284

Irene M. Conejo v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 0:06-3519

Melody S. Erickson v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 0:06-3526

Alan Kite, et al. v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 0:06-3527

George P. Wagner v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 0:06-3537

Gordon J. Haughey, et al. v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 0:06-3539

Stella C. Rush, et al. v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 0:06-3544

SCHEDULE A — Continued SCHEDULE A — Continued

Carl M. Milam, et al. v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 0:06-3778

Floyd Wayne Kanuch v. Boehringer In-gelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 0:06-3839

Rick James Berger v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 0:06-4358

Mark Mayer v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 0:06-4366

Resa King, et al. v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 0:06-4502

George Konrad v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 0:06-4699

Steven Purser, et al. v. Boehringer In-gelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 0:06-4783

Barbara Goldman, et al. v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 0:06-4784

James Holmes, et al. v. Boehringer In-gelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 0:06-4785

Florene D. Saracco v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 0:06-4827

Greg Stutz v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 0:06-4828

Thomas M. Celorie v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 0:06-4868

Maryann J. Deleo, et al. v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 0:06-4869

William Chamberlain, et al. v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 0:06-4870

Ronald P. Markel, et al. v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 0:06-4871

Hilarle Pearce v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 0:06-4944

Linda Michels, et al. v. Boehringer In-gelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 0:06-4945

David Emery, et al. v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 0:06-4946

Richard Scott Brown v. Boehringer In-gelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 0:06-4947

William Gage, et al. v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 0:06-4948

Carolyn Paulette Shows, et al. v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 0:06-4949

Michele C. Glancy, et al. v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 0:06-5123

Tza Ping Aliya Lee, et al. v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 0:07-39

Western District of Missouri

Wayne Jackson, et al. v. Boehringer In-gelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 4:06-969

Western District of Washington

Matthew Andresen, et al. v. Pfizer Inc., et al., C.A. No. 2:06-1413

1 . In addition to these 58 actions, the Panel has been notified of more than 50 related actions. These actions and any other related actions will be treated as potential tag-along actions. See Rules 7.4 and 7.5, R.P.J.P.M.L., 199 F.R.D. 425, 435-36 (2001).