In Re Vioxx Products Liability Litigation

Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

In Re Vioxx Products Liability Litigation

360 F. Supp. 2d 1352, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2527, 2005 WL 372296

CourtUnited States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

DecidedFebruary 16, 2005

Docket1657

StatusPublished

Cited by30 cases

This text of 360 F. Supp. 2d 1352 (In Re Vioxx 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 Vioxx Products Liability Litigation, 360 F. Supp. 2d 1352, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2527, 2005 WL 372296 (jpml 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

*1353 TRANSFER ORDER

WM. TERRELL HODGES, Chairman.

This litigation presently consists of 148 actions pending in 41 federal districts and listed on the attached Schedule A. Before the Panel are two motions, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, that taken together seek centralization for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings of all but one of these actions. 1 Plaintiff in one Eastern Louisiana action seeks centralization of this litigation in the Eastern or Western Districts of Louisiana. Defendant Merck & Co., Inc. (Merck) moves for centralization of this litigation in either the District of Maryland, the Southern District of Indiana, or the Northern District of Illinois. Merck also agrees with some plaintiffs that the District of New Jersey would be an appropriate transferee district. Am-erisourceBergen Corp., a wholesaler defendant, supports centralization in the Maryland district. Most responding plaintiffs agree that centralization is appropriate, although some plaintiffs suggest alternative transferee districts, including the Northern District of Alabama, the Central or Northern Districts of California, the District of Delaware, the Southern District of Illinois, the District of Minnesota, the Eastern District of Missouri, the District of New Jersey, the Eastern or Southern Districts of New York, the Northern or Southern Districts of Ohio, the Western District of Oklahoma, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and the Southern or Western Districts of Texas.

The three arguments in opposition to Section 1407 centralization can be summarized as follows: plaintiffs in two actions oppose inclusion of their actions in MDL-1657 proceedings, because motions to remand their actions to state court are pending; plaintiffs in some Southern Texas actions along with plaintiffs in one third-party payor action pending in the Southern District of New York oppose these actions’ inclusion in MDL-1657, arguing that individual questions of fact in their actions predominate over any common questions of fact and/or that discovery is already underway in these actions; and plaintiffs in one action pending in the Eastern District of New York oppose inclusion of their action in 1407 proceedings, since it involves additional claims relating to a different prescription medication not involved in other MDL-1657 actions.

On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, the Panel finds that the actions in this litigation involve common questions of fact, and that centralization under Section 1407 in the Eastern District of Louisiana will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and *1354 promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. All actions focus on alleged increased health risks (including heart attack and/or stroke) when taking Vioxx, an anti-inflammatory drug, and whether Merck knew of these increased risks and failed to disclose them to the medical community and consumers. Centralization under Section 1407 is necessary in order to eliminate duplicative discovery, avoid inconsistent pretrial rulings, and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel and the judiciary.

The pendency of a motion to remand to state court is not a sufficient basis to avoid inclusion in Section 1407 proceedings. We note that motions to remand in two actions, one action each in the District of Kansas and the Eastern District of Missouri, as well as in any other MDL-1657 actions can be presented to and decided by the transferee judge. See, e.g., In re Ivy, 901 F.2d 7 (2d Cir.1990); In re Prudential Insurance Company of America Sales Practices Litigation, 170 F.Supp.2d 1346, 1347-48 (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit.2001).

Nor are we persuaded by the arguments of some opposing Texas plaintiffs and the New York third-party payor plaintiffs. We point out that transfer under Section 1407 has the salutary effect of placing all actions in this docket before a single judge who can formulate a pretrial program that: 1) allows discovery with respect to any non-common issues to proceed concurrently with discovery on common issues, In re Joseph F. Smith Patent Litigation, 407 F.Supp. 1403, 1404 (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit.1976); and 2) ensures that pretrial proceedings will be conducted in a manner leading to the just and expeditious resolution of all actions to the overall benefit of the parties. We note that the MDL-1657 transferee court can employ any number of pretrial techniques — such as establishing separate discovery and/or motion tracks — to efficiently manage this litigation. In any event, we leave the extent and manner of coordination or consolidation of these actions to the discretion of the transferee court. In re Mutual Funds Investment Litigation, 310 F.Supp.2d 1359 (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit.2004). It may be, on further refinement of the issues and close scrutiny by the transferee judge, that some claims or actions can be remanded to their transferor districts for trial in advance of the other actions in the transferee district. But we are unwilling, on the basis of the record before us, to make such a determination at this time. Should the transferee judge deem remand of any claims or actions appropriate, procedures are available whereby this may be accomplished with a minimum of delay. See Rule 7.6, 199 F.R.D. at 436-38. We are confident in the transferee judge’s ability to streamline pretrial proceedings in these actions, while concomitantly directing the appropriate resolution of all claims.

The Panel is persuaded, however, that claims involving a prescription drug other than Vioxx in one Eastern District of New York action do not share sufficient questions of fact with claims relating to Vioxx to warrant inclusion of these nonVioxx claims in MDL-1657 proceedings.

Given the geographic dispersal of constituent actions and potential tag-along actions, no district stands out as the geographic focal point for this nationwide docket. Thus we have searched for a transferee judge with the time and experience to steer this complex litigation on a prudent course. By centralizing this litigation in the Eastern District of Louisiana before Judge Eldon E. Fallon, we are assigning this litigation ■ to a jurist experienced in complex multidistrict products liability litigation and sitting in a district with the capacity to handle this litigation.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, the actions *1355 listed on the attached Schedule A and pending outside the Eastern District of Louisiana are transferred to the Eastern District of Louisiana and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Eldon E. Fallon for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with the actions pending there and listed on Schedule A.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that claims in Dominick Cain, et al. v. Merck & Co., Inc., et al., E.D. New York, CA. No. 1:01-3441, against Pharmacia Corp., Pfizer Inc., and G.D. Searle & Co.

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