Opinion
DOCKET NO. 1716.
October 18, 2005.
BEFORE WM. TERRELL HODGES, CHAIRMAN, JOHN F. KEENAN, D. LOWELL JENSEN, J. FREDERICK MOTZ, ROBERT L. MILLER, JR., KATHRYN H. VRATIL AND DAVID R. HANSEN, JUDGES OF THE PANEL
ORDER DENYING TRANSFER
This litigation currently consists of 25 actions listed on the attached Schedule A and pending in seventeen districts as follows: five actions in the Southern District of Illinois; two actions each in the Central District of Illinois, the Eastern District of Kentucky, the Northern District of Texas and the Eastern District of Wisconsin; and one action each in the District of Arizona, the Eastern District of Arkansas, the Central District of California, the Middle District of Florida, the Southern District of Iowa, the District of Kansas, the Western District of Louisiana, the District of New Hampshire, the Southern District of New York, the Southern District of Ohio, and the Eastern and Southern Districts of Texas. The plaintiffs in these 25 actions move the Panel, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, for an order centralizing this litigation in the Southern District of Illinois, or, alternatively, the Southern District of New York. All responding defendants oppose transfer.
The Section 1407 motion, as originally filed, included six additional actions: one action pending in the Middle District of Georgia, Cornelia Taylor v. Purdue Pharma Co., et al., C.A. No. 5:04-197; one action pending in the Northern District of Mississippi, Gregory Suber, Sr. v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al., C.A. No. 4:03-97; one action pending in the Southern District of Mississippi, Henry Butch Turner v. Purdue Pharma Co., et al., C.A. No. 3:04-403; two actions pending in the Southern District of New York, Linda Terry v. Purdue Pharma Co., et al., C.A. No. 1:04-2102, and Danielle Chaballa v. P.F. Laboratories, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 1:05-3500; and one action pending in the Southern District of Ohio, Judy Wethington, et al. v. Purdue Pharma LP, et al., C.A. No. 01:01-441. Subsequently, i) movants determined that the Southern District of New York Chaballa action had been included on their Section 1407 motion in error, and they amended their motion to withdraw the action from the Panel's consideration; ii) the Northern District of Mississippi action was dismissed pursuant to a grant of summary judgment for the defendants; and iii) the remaining four actions have been resolved pursuant to stipulations of dismissal entered into by the parties to the actions. Accordingly, the question of Section 1407 transfer with respect to these six actions is moot.
On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, the Panel finds that Section 1407 centralization would neither serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses nor further the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. Movants have failed to demonstrate that any common questions of fact and law are sufficiently complex, unresolved and/or numerous to justify Section 1407 transfer in this docket where i) pretrial proceedings are already advanced in certain of the constituent actions, and ii) plaintiffs in all actions subject to the transfer motion are represented by common counsel.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, for centralization of the actions listed on Schedule A is denied.
SCHEDULE A
MDL-1716 — In re OxyContin Products Liability Litigation (No. II) District of Arizona Frank D. Marcum v. Purdue Pharma Co., et al., C.A. No. 2:04-1824
Eastern District of Arkansas Michael R. Engle v. Purdue Pharma Co., et al., C.A. No. 4:04-602
Central District of California Shari J. Sanders v. Purdue Pharma Co., et al., C.A. No. 2:04-4665
Middle District of Florida Daniel B. Timmons v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al., C.A. No. 8:04-1479 Central District of Illinois Michael J. Collins v. Purdue Pharma Co., et al., C.A. No. 3:04-3279 James E. Plowman v. Purdue Pharma Co., et al., C.A. No. 3:04-3280
Southern District of Illinois Robert G. Savant v. Purdue Pharma Co., et al., C.A. No. 3:04-394 Betty F. McKane v. Purdue Pharma Co., et al., C.A. No. 3:04-395 Marie L. Cavenaile v. Purdue Pharma Co., et al., C.A. No. 3:04-401 Cathy D. Wilken, et al. v. Purdue Pharma Co., et al., C.A. No. 3:04-402 Timothy Wilkes v. Purdue Pharma Co., et al., C.A. No. 3:04-403
Southern District of Iowa Chelly Griffith v. Purdue Pharma Co., et al., C.A. No. 3:04-10072
District of Kansas William J. Honeyman v. Purdue Pharma Co., et al., C.A. No. 2:04-2411
Eastern District of Kentucky Jack P. Marcum v. Purdue Pharma Co., et al., C.A. No. 2:04-152 Phillip L. Crabtree v. Purdue Pharma Co., et al., C.A. No. 6:04-294
Western District of Louisiana Enrique Angulo v. Purdue Pharma Co., et al., C.A. No. 1:04-1638
District of New Hampshire Charlene E. Franz v. Purdue Pharma Co., et al., C.A. No. 1:05-201
Southern District of New York Donald Pratt v. Purdue Pharma Co., et al., C.A. No. 1:04-2100
Southern District of Ohio Victoria A. Cook v. Purdue Pharma Co., et al., C.A. No. 1:04-530
Eastern District of Texas Cynthia A. McKnight v. Purdue Pharma Co., et al., C.A. No. 9:04-116
Northern District of Texas Eric J. Koenig, et al. v. Purdue Pharma Co., et al., C.A. No. 3:04-1590 Charlie L. Lee, Jr. v. Purdue Pharma Co., et al., C.A. No. 3:04-1697
Southern District of Texas Michael R. Engle, et al. v. Purdue Pharma Co., et al., C.A. No. 4:04-2407
Eastern District of Wisconsin Kay H. Freund v. Purdue Pharma Co., et al., C.A. No. 1:04-611 Teddy L. Farris v. Purdue Pharma Co., et al., C.A. No. 2:04-736