Opinion
C.A. No. 3:03-1071, C.A. No. 3:03-1843, C.A. No. 3:03-1843, CA 2:04-0138
February 20, 2004
TRANSFER ORDER
Before the Panel are motions brought, pursuant to Rule 7.4, R.P.J.P.M.L., 199 RR.D. 425, 435-36 (2001), by the plaintiffs in one Southern District of Mississippi action and one Northern District of Texas action to vacate the Panel's orders conditionally transferring the actions to the Southern District of West Virginia for inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings occurring there in this docket. Defendant Bristol-Myers Squibb Company opposes the motions to vacate and favors inclusion of the actions in MDL-1477.
On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, the Panel finds that these two actions involve common questions of fact with the actions in tins litigation previously transferred to the Southern District of West Virginia, and that transfer of these actions to the Southern District of West Virginia for inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings in that district will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. The Panel further finds that transfer of these actions is appropriate for reasons expressed by the Panel in its original order directing centralization in this docket. The Panel held that the Southern District of West Virginia was a proper Section 1407 forum for actions involving claims of liability related to the prescription drug Serzonc. See In re Serzone Products Liability Litigation, 217 F. Supp.2d 1 3 72 (J.P.M.L. 2002). We note that the motions for remand to state court can be presented to and decided by the transferee court. See, e.g., In re. Ivy, 901 F.2d 7 (2nd Cir. 1990); In re Prudential Insurance Company of America Sales Practices Litigation, 170 F. Supp.2d 1346, 1347-48 (J.P.M.L, 2001).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, these two actions 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 prctrial proceedings occurring there in this docket.
Dear Ms. Deppner:
I am enclosing a certified copy and additional copies of an order filed by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation in the above-captioned matter. The act creating the Panel provides that:
Orders of transfer . . . shall be filed in the office of the clerk of the district court of the transferee district and shall be effective when thus Filed. The clerk of the transferee district court shall forthwith transmit a certified copy of the panel's order to transfer to the clerk of the district court from which the action is being transferred. 28 U.S.C. § 1407(c).
As is also required by the statute, a copy of the order is being sent to the clerk for the Eastern District of California, the district in which the hearing on this matter was held on January 29, 2004.
TRANSFER ORDER
Before the Panel are motions brought, pursuant to Rule 7.4, R.PJ.P.M.L., 199 F.R.D. 425, 435-36 (2001), by the plaintiffs in one Southern District of Mississippi action and one Northern District of Texas action to vacate the Panel's orders conditionally transferring the actions to the Southern District of West Virginia for inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings occurring there in this docket. Defendant. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company opposes fee motions to vacate and favors inclusion of the actions in MDL-1477.
On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, the Panel finds that these two actions involve common questions of fact with the actions in this litigation previously transferred to the Southern District of West Virginia, and that transfer of these actions to the Southern District of West Virginia for inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings in that district will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. The Panel further finds that transfer of these actions is appropriate for reasons expressed by the Panel in its original order directing centralization in this docket. The Panel held that the Southern District of West Virginia was a proper Section 1407 forum for actions involving claims of liability related to the prescription drug Serzone. See In re Serzone Products Liability Litigation, 217 F. Supp.2d 1372 (J.P.M.L. 2002), We note that the motions for remand to state court can be presented to and decided by the transferee court. See, e.g., In re Ivy, 901 F.2d 7 (2nd Cir. 1990); In re Prudential Insurance Company of America Sales Practices Litigation, 170 F. Supp.2d 1346, 1347-48 (J.P.M.L. 2001).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, these two actions are transferred to the Southern District of West Virginia and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Joseph R. Goodwill for inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings occurring there in this docket.