844 F. Supp. 2d 1359
J.P.M.L.2012Background
- Plaintiffs seek centralized handling of three MDLs (2325, 2326, 2327) covering pelvic surgical mesh defects.
- Actions total ~150 nationwide; additional related actions potentially substantial.
- AMS, Boston Scientific, and Ethicon are the first named defendants in respective MDLs.
- Panel considers transferee district; most parties favor Southern District of West Virginia (SDWV).
- Judge Goodwin in SDWV already presides over related MDL 2187; centralization in SDWV recommended.
- Certain actions removed or remanded or excluded from centralization schedules after filings, including some in Schedule B.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Should MDLs 2325, 2326, 2327 be centralized together? | Plaintiffs urge single MDL in SDWV. | Defendants advocate separate MDLs in separate districts. | Three MDLs centralized in SDWV. |
| What is the proper transferee district for centralized MDLs? | SDWV most convenient for all actions. | Alternative districts acceptable; SDWV favored by defendants AMS/Boston Scientific. | SDWV chosen as transferee for all three MDLs. |
| Should District of Nevada Erwin and District of New Jersey Bienstock actions be included or excluded? | Some should be central transferred for efficiency. | Some should be remanded or excluded due to lack of relatedness. | Erwin not delayed transfer; Bienstock not excluded from 2327. |
| Should particular listed actions be denied transfer to MDLs? | Transfer appropriate for most listed actions. | Deny transfer for certain schedule-listed actions. | Schedule B transfers denied; remaining actions to transfer. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Ivy, 901 F.2d 7 (2d Cir. 1990) (remand/remand timing guidance for remand to state court)
- In re Prudential Insurance Co. of Am. Sales Practices Litigation, 170 F. Supp. 2d 1346 (J.P.M.L. 2001) (guide for transfer decisions and timing of remand)
- In re Mentor Corp. ObTape Transobturator Sling Prods. Liab. Litig., 588 F. Supp. 2d 1374 (J.P.M.L. 2008) (centralization rationale and efficiency in MDL transfers)
- In re Avaulta Pelvic Support Sys. Prods. Liab. Litig., 746 F. Supp. 2d 1362 (J.P.M.L. 2010) (coordination of related pelvic mesh MDLs)