Filed: May 09, 2016
Latest Update: May 09, 2016
Summary: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: POTENTIAL TRANSFER TO MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION COURT, MDL NO. 2244 OTIS D. WRIGHT, II , District Judge . On May 24, 2011, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation created MDL No. 2244, In Re: DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., Pinnacle Hip Implant Products Liability Litigation (3:11-md-02244). The Panel's Transfer Order designated the Northern District of Texas as the transferee court and the Honorable Ed Kinkeade as the transferee judge for three currently pending ma
Summary: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: POTENTIAL TRANSFER TO MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION COURT, MDL NO. 2244 OTIS D. WRIGHT, II , District Judge . On May 24, 2011, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation created MDL No. 2244, In Re: DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., Pinnacle Hip Implant Products Liability Litigation (3:11-md-02244). The Panel's Transfer Order designated the Northern District of Texas as the transferee court and the Honorable Ed Kinkeade as the transferee judge for three currently pending mat..
More
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: POTENTIAL TRANSFER TO MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION COURT, MDL NO. 2244
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II, District Judge.
On May 24, 2011, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation created MDL No. 2244, In Re: DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., Pinnacle Hip Implant Products Liability Litigation (3:11-md-02244). The Panel's Transfer Order designated the Northern District of Texas as the transferee court and the Honorable Ed Kinkeade as the transferee judge for three currently pending matters, and designated any other related federal actions as "potential tag-along actions." MDL Transfer Order, MDL No. 2244, http://www.txnd.uscourts.gov/mdl-311-md-02244.
This Court now asks the parties if the case at bar involves such common questions of fact with the motions transferred to MDL No. 2244 that transfer to the MDL court in the Northern District of Texas is now appropriate. Alternatively, parties are to explain why, in the face of any commonalities between this action and those under the MDL, this matter should remain before this Court.
Parties are to respond, in writing, to the above questions, including by joint stipulation, by May 23, 2016. A request by Defendant for the Judicial Panel to transfer the case at bar under Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation Rule 7.1(a) will be considered a valid response to this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
