IN RE PRADAXA (DABIGATRAN ETEXILATE) PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, 2385 (2015)
Court: District Court, S.D. Illinois
Number: infdco20150519904
Visitors: 5
Filed: May 18, 2015
Latest Update: May 18, 2015
Summary: ORDER DAVID R. HERNDON , District Judge . This Court is the transferee court presiding over the Multidistrict Litigation ("MDL") known as In re: Pradaxa (Dabigatran Etexilate) Products Liability Litigation, MDL no. 2385. On May 28, 2014, after an extensive mediation process supervised by the Court and the Special Master, the defendants and the Pradaxa Claimants' Negotiating Counsel executed a Master Settlement Agreement implementing a global settlement for MDL 2385. As explained in Case
Summary: ORDER DAVID R. HERNDON , District Judge . This Court is the transferee court presiding over the Multidistrict Litigation ("MDL") known as In re: Pradaxa (Dabigatran Etexilate) Products Liability Litigation, MDL no. 2385. On May 28, 2014, after an extensive mediation process supervised by the Court and the Special Master, the defendants and the Pradaxa Claimants' Negotiating Counsel executed a Master Settlement Agreement implementing a global settlement for MDL 2385. As explained in Case M..
More
ORDER
DAVID R. HERNDON, District Judge.
This Court is the transferee court presiding over the Multidistrict Litigation ("MDL") known as In re: Pradaxa (Dabigatran Etexilate) Products Liability Litigation, MDL no. 2385. On May 28, 2014, after an extensive mediation process supervised by the Court and the Special Master, the defendants and the Pradaxa Claimants' Negotiating Counsel executed a Master Settlement Agreement implementing a global settlement for MDL 2385. As explained in Case Management Order Number 95, although some cases that are a part of the global settlement have yet to be formally dismissed (pending lien resolution and distribution), for all intents and purposes, this litigation has concluded (MDL 2385 Doc. 668).
In light of the above, the Court feels that the above captioned case will not benefit from further coordinated proceedings in this MDL. Accordingly, the Court feels that remand is now appropriate and suggests to the MDL Panel that the above captioned case be remanded to the transferor court for final disposition.1
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. The federal multidistrict litigation statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1407, mandates that each transferred action "shall be remanded by the panel at or before the conclusion of such pretrial proceedings to the district from which it was transferred unless it shall have been previously terminated." 28 U.S.C. § 1407(a). The ultimate decision of whether to remand a case from a transferee court rests with the MDL Panel. See 28 U.S.C. § 1407. However, "[i]n considering the question of remand, the Panel has consistently given great weight to the transferee judge's determination that remand of a particular action at a particular time is appropriate because the transferee judge, after all, supervises the day-to-day pretrial proceedings. . . ." In re Data General Corp. Antitrust Litigation, 510 F.Supp. 1220, 1226 (J.P.M.L. 1979), quoting In re Holiday Magic Sec. & Antitrust Litigation, 433 F.Supp. 1125, 1126 (J.P.M.L. 1977).
Source: Leagle
