ORDER

DAVID G. CAMPBELL, Senior District Judge.

Defendants move to dismiss duplicative complaints filed in this MDL. Doc. 17933. The motion includes a list of ten plaintiffs who have filed more than one complaint. Id. at 3.1 Before filing the motion, Defendants sent multiple letters notifying Plaintiffs' Steering Committee and counsel for each individual plaintiff of the duplicative actions. See Doc. 17933-1. The letters explained that the duplicate complaints raise the same claims for the same individual as asserted in the initial complaints, and requested that one of the cases be dismissed. See Doc. 17933 at 3. Plaintiffs' lead counsel in this MDL do not oppose dismissal of duplicate complaints, and counsel for the individual plaintiffs have not responded to Defendants' letters and motion (with the exceptions listed below).

The filing of duplicative complaints in this MDL is not appropriate. See Doc. 16343 at 4-5; see also M.M. v. Lafayette Sch. Dist. 681 F.3d 1082, 1091 (9th Cir. 2012) ("It is well established that a district court has broad discretion to control its own docket, and that includes the power to dismiss duplicative claims."); Pacesetter Sys., Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc., 678 F.2d 93, 94-95 (9th Cir. 1982) (a district court may "decline jurisdiction over an action when a complaint involving the same parties and issues has already been filed in another district").

Defendants' motion (Doc. 17933) is granted and the following duplicate complaints are dismissed: