From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Henson v. Warner-Lambert Co.

United States District Court, S.D. Ohio
Apr 8, 2002
C.A. No. 2:01-920, Docket No. 1348 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 8, 2002)

Opinion

C.A. No. 2:01-920, Docket No. 1348.

April 8, 2002

BEFORE WM. TERRELL HODGES, CHAIRMAN, JOHN F. KEENAN, MOREY L. SEAR, BRUCE M. SELYA, JULIA SMITH GIBBONS, D. LOWELL JENSEN AND J. FREDERICK MOTZ, JUDGES OF THE PANEL

Judge Selya did not participate in the decision of this matter.


TRANSFER ORDER


Presently before the Panel are motions by plaintiffs in the first fourteen actions, pursuant to Rule 7.4, R.P.J.P.M.L., 199 F.R.D. 425, 435-36 (2001), to vacate the Panel's orders conditionally transferring the actions to the Southern District of New York for inclusion in the Section 1407 proceedings occurring there in this docket, primarily on the ground that motions to remand these actions to state court are pending; some plaintiffs ask the Panel to defer its Section 1407 ruling pending a ruling by the transferor judges on these motions. Defendant Russell County Medical Center (RCMC) moves to vacate the Panel's conditional transfer order in the remaining Virginia action in light of the fact that RCMC's motion for summary judgment is pending. The manufacturing defendants oppose the motions and favor inclusion of all actions in centralized pretrial proceedings in this docket.

Warner-Lambert Company, Parke-Davis, and Pfizer Inc.

On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, the Panel finds that these fifteen actions involve common questions of fact with actions in this litigation previously transferred to the Southern District of New York, and that transfer of these actions to that district for inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings occurring there will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. We note that pending motions to remand these actions to their respective state courts or for summary judgment can be presented to and decided by the transferee judge. See, e.g., In re Ivy, 901 F.2d 7 (2d Cir. 1990); In re Air Crash Disaster at Florida Everglades on December 29, 1972, 368 F. Supp. 812, 813 (J.P.M.L. 1973). 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 New York was the proper Section 1407 forum for actions involving claims of liability for allegedly adverse effects of Rezulin. See In re Rezulin Products Liability Litigation, MDL-1348 (J.P.M.L. June 9, 2000) (unpublished order).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, these fifteen actions are transferred to the Southern District of New York and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Lewis A. Kaplan for inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings occurring there in this docket.


Summaries of

Henson v. Warner-Lambert Co.

United States District Court, S.D. Ohio
Apr 8, 2002
C.A. No. 2:01-920, Docket No. 1348 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 8, 2002)
Case details for

Henson v. Warner-Lambert Co.

Case Details

Full title:Priscilla J. Henson, et al. v. Warner-Lambert Co., et al. In Re Rezulin…

Court:United States District Court, S.D. Ohio

Date published: Apr 8, 2002

Citations

C.A. No. 2:01-920, Docket No. 1348 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 8, 2002)