In re Nexium (Esomeprazole) Antitrust Litigation
Opinion
TRANSFER ORDER
Before the Panel:
All the responding parties support centralization, but disagree as to the transferee district. All of the defendants,2 plaintiffs in the District of New Jersey Value Drug Co. action, and the plaintiff in a potential tag-along action in the District of New Jersey support the motion to centralize in the District of New Jersey. Plaintiff in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Fraternal Order of Police action does not oppose the motion. Rochester Drug CoOperative, Inc., a plaintiff in an Eastern District of Pennsylvania action, and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 595 Health and Welfare Fund, a plaintiff in a potential-tag along action in the same district, propose centralization in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.3 [1361]*1361The plaintiffs in a District of Massachusetts action and a potential tag-along action support centralization in the District of Massachusetts.
On the b'asis of the papers filed and the hearing session held, we find that these actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization under Section 1407 in the District of Massachusetts will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. These actions are purported nationwide class actions alleging that defendants violated federal and state antitrust laws by excluding generic competition for Nexium4 through, among other things, entering into reverse payment agreements in which AstraZeneca allegedly agreed to pay the generic manufacturer defendants substantial sums in exchange for delaying entry of their less expensive generic versions of Nexium into the market. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel and the judiciary.
In concluding that the District of Massachusetts is an appropriate forum for this docket, we note that this district, compared to the others proposed by the parties, is a relatively underutilized district in which three of the eleven related actions are pending. The district is both convenient and accessible for the parties and witnesses. Finally, by selecting Judge William G. Young to preside over this matter, we are selecting a jurist with multidistrict litigation experience, but who is not presently presiding over such a litigation. Judge Young has demonstrated both the ability and willingness to handle this litigation.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, the actions listed on Schedule A and pending outside the District of Massachusetts are transferred to the District of Massachusetts and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable William G. Young for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with the action pending there.
SCHEDULE A
MDL No. 2409 — IN RE: NEXIUM (ESOMEPRAZOLE) ANTITRUST LITIGATION
District of Massachusetts
Professional Drug Company, Inc. v. AstraZeneca AB, et al., C.A. No. 1:12—11609
District of New Jersey
Meijer, Inc., et al. v. AstraZeneca AB, et al., C.A. No. 3:12-05443
Value Drug Company, et al. v. AstraZeneca Plc, et al., C.A. No. 3:12-05525
Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Fraternal Order of Police Miami Lodge 20, Insurance Trust Fund v. AstraZeneca LP, et al., C.A. No. 2:12-04893
New York Hotel Trades Council & Hotel Association of New York City, Inc. Health Benefits Fund v. AstraZeneca AB, et al., C.A. No. 2:12-04898
Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc. v. AstraZeneca AB et al., C.A. No. 2:12-04911
Judge Kathryn H. Vratil took no part in the decision of this matter.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
908 F. Supp. 2d 1360 (In re Nexium (Esomeprazole) Antitrust Litigation) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.