Filed: Dec. 12, 2014
Latest Update: Dec. 12, 2014
Summary: TRANSFER ORDER SARAH S. VANCE, Chair. Before the Panel: * Plaintiffs in the six actions listed on Schedule A move under Panel Rule 7.1 to vacate our orders conditionally transferring the actions to MDL No. 2327. Responding defendants Johnson & Johnson and Ethicon, Inc. (collectively, Ethicon) oppose the motions to vacate. After considering the argument of counsel, we find these actions involve common questions of fact with the actions previously transferred to MDL No. 2327, and that transfe
Summary: TRANSFER ORDER SARAH S. VANCE, Chair. Before the Panel: * Plaintiffs in the six actions listed on Schedule A move under Panel Rule 7.1 to vacate our orders conditionally transferring the actions to MDL No. 2327. Responding defendants Johnson & Johnson and Ethicon, Inc. (collectively, Ethicon) oppose the motions to vacate. After considering the argument of counsel, we find these actions involve common questions of fact with the actions previously transferred to MDL No. 2327, and that transfer..
More
TRANSFER ORDER
SARAH S. VANCE, Chair.
Before the Panel:* Plaintiffs in the six actions listed on Schedule A move under Panel Rule 7.1 to vacate our orders conditionally transferring the actions to MDL No. 2327. Responding defendants Johnson & Johnson and Ethicon, Inc. (collectively, Ethicon) oppose the motions to vacate.
After considering the argument of counsel, we find these actions involve common questions of fact with the actions previously transferred to MDL No. 2327, and that transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. Plaintiffs do not dispute that their actions share questions of fact with MDL No. 2327. Like many of the already-centralized actions, these actions involve factual questions arising from allegations that Ethicon and related entities defectively designed, manufactured, and marketed pelvic surgical mesh products, resulting in serious injuries, and that defendants failed to provide appropriate warnings and instructions regarding the risks and dangers posed by the devices. See In re: Ethicon, Inc., Pelvic Repair Sys. Prods. Liab. Litig., et al., 844 F.Supp.2d 1359 (J.P.M.L. 2012).
In support of the motions to vacate, plaintiffs argue that their actions were improperly removed and motions to remand to state court are pending. The Panel often has held that jurisdictional issues do not present an impediment to transfer, as plaintiffs can present these arguments to the transferee judge.1 See, e.g., In re: Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. Sales Practices Litig., 170 F.Supp.2d 1346, 1347-48 (J.P.M.L. 2001).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the actions listed on Schedule A are transferred to the Southern District of West Virginia and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Joseph R. Goodwin for inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.
SCHEDULE A
Eastern District of Missouri
GEEL, ET AL. v. ETHICON, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 4:14-01397 MILLER, ET AL. v. ETHICON, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 4:14-01403
District of New Mexico
TORRES, ET AL. v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:14-00743
Eastern District of Texas
BRAGG, ET AL. v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, ET AL., C.A. No. 6:14-00719
Northern District of Texas
EVANS, ET AL. v. ETHICON, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:14-03062
Southern District of Texas
LOCKE, ET AL. v. ETHICON, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 4:14-02648
