In Re Not-For-Profit Hospitals/Uninsured Patients Litigation

341 F. Supp. 2d 1354, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21211, 2004 WL 2402186

• Court: United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
• Decided: October 19, 2004
• Docket: 1641, C.A. 2:04-1247, No. C.A. 2:04-1297, No. C.A. 3:04-2624, No. C.A. 1:04-1285, No. C.A. 2:04-369, No. C.A. 6:04-1021, No. C.A. 1:04-21437, No. C.A. 3:04-1365
• Status: Published

Opinion

ORDER DENYING TRANSFER

WM. TERRELL HODGES, Chairman.

This litigation currently consists of the 28 actions listed on the attached Schedule A and pending in 21 districts as follows: three actions each in the Middle District of Georgia and the Northern District of Illinois; two actions each in the Middle District of Florida, the District of Minnesota and the Northern District of Ohio; and one action each in the Northern District of Alabama, the District of Arizona, the Northern District of California, the District of Colorado, the Southern District of Florida, the Northern and Southern Districts of Georgia, the Southern District of Mississippi, the Eastern District of Missouri, the District of New Jersey, the District of New Mexico, the Southern District of New York, the Western District of Pennsylvania, the Middle District of Tennessee, and the Eastern and Northern Districts of Texas. 1 The plaintiffs in the three Northern District of Illinois actions move the Panel, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, for an order centralizing this litigation in the Northern District of Illinois, the Eastern District of Missouri, or the Middle District of Tennessee. All responding plaintiffs in both constituent actions and potential tagalong actions support transfer. All responding defendants oppose transfer.

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. Notwithstanding the numerosity of actions, movants have failed to persuade us that these actions share sufficient common questions of fact to warrant Section 1407 transfer.

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

SCHEDULE A

MDL-16H — In re Not-for-Profit Hospitals/Uninsured Patients Litigation

Northern District of Alabama

Rhonda Kizzire, et al. v. Baptist Health Systems, Inc., C.A. No. 2:04-1247

District of Arizona

Gregory James Fields v. Banner Health, et al., C.A. No. 2:04-1297

Northern District of California

Duane Darr v. Sutter Health, C.A. No. 3:04-2624

District of Colorado

George Scott Ferguson, et al. v. Centura Health Corp., et al., C.A. No. 1:04-1285

Middle District of Florida

Wayne D. Nash v. Lee Memorial Health System, C.A. No. 2:04-369

Edward C. Jellison v. Florida Hospital Healthcare System, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 6:04-1021

Southern District of Florida

Miriam Sabeta, et al. v. Baptist Hospital of Miami, et al., C.A. No. 1:04-21437

Middle District of Georgia

Deborah Gail Ellis, et al. v. Phoebe Putney Health Systems, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 1:04-80

Kimberly Hogland v. Athens Regional Health Services, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 3:04-50

Katie M. Washington v. Medical Center of Central Georgia, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 5:04-185

Northern District of Georgia

John R. Cruz, et al. v. Wellstar Health Systems, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 1:04-1746

Southern District of Georgia

Bridget Lively v. MCG Health, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 1:04-113

Northern District of Illinois

Jannie Watts, et al. v. Advocate Health Care Network, et al., C.A. No. 1:04-4062

Joseph Dumas, Sr., et al v. Provena Health, et al., C.A. No. 1:04-4063

Wojciech Cygan v. Resurrection Medical Center, et al., C.A. No. 1:04-4168

District of Minnesota

Rachel Peterson, et al., v. Fairview Health Services, C.A. No. 0:04-2973

Paul Kern, et al. v. Allina Health System, et al., C.A. No. 0:04-2974

Southern District of Mississippi

Dorothy Wright v. St. Dominic Health Services, et al., C.A. No. 3:04-521

Eastern District of Missouri

Dwight L. Quinn v. BJC Health System, et al., C.A. No. 4:04-768

District of Neio Jersey

Joyce Campbell v. Saint Barnabas Corp., C.A. No. 2:04-3201

District of New Mexico

Richard Garcia v. Presbyterian Healthcare Services, et al., C.A. No. 6:04-832

Southern District of New York

Shkelqim Kolari v. New York-Presbyterian Hospital, et al., C.A. No. 1:04-5506

Northern District of Ohio

Lloida Lorens v. Catholic Charities Healthcare Partners, et al., C.A. No. 1:04-1511

Mitulkumar Patel v. Cleveland Clinic Foundation, et al., C.A. No. 1:04-1330

Western District of Pennsylvania

Gary Amato, et al. v. UPMC, et al., C.A. No. 2:04-1025

Middle District of Tennessee

Patrick Hagedorn v. Saint Thomas Hospital, Inc., C.A. No. 3:04-526

Eastern District of Texas

Crystal Lynn McCoy, et al. v. East Texas Medical Center Regional Healthcare System, et al., C.A. No. 2:04-223

Northern District of Texas

Janay Cargile, et al. v. Baylor Health Care System, et al., C.A. No. 3:04-1365

1 . The Section 1407 motion, as filed, also pertained to three additional actions voluntarily dismissed by their plaintiffs: Doris A. Frimpong v. DeKalb Medical Center, Inc., et al., N.D. Georgia, C.A. No. 1:04-1745; Eileen Maldonado v. Ochsner Clinic Foundation, E.D. Louisiana, C.A. No. 2:04—1987; and Clayton Woodrum, et al. v. Integris Health, Inc., et al., W.D. Oklahoma, C.A. No. 5:04-835. Accordingly, the question of Section 1407 transfer with respect to these three actions is now moot. The Panel has also been notified of additional purportedly related actions recently filed in the Eastern District of Arkansas, the Northern District of California, the District of Connecticut, the Middle and Northern Districts of Florida, the Middle District of Georgia, the Southern District of Illinois, the Middle District of Louisiana, the District of Massachusetts, the Eastern District of Michigan, the Southern District of Mississippi, the Eastern and Southern Districts of New York, the Northern District of Ohio, the Eastern and Western Districts of Pennsylvania, and the Eastern District of Virginia. In light of the Panel's disposition of this docket, the question of Section 1407 transfer with respect to these actions is also now moot.