883 F. Supp. 2d 1348
J.P.M.L.2012Background
- Coloplast moves to centralize 13 actions under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 in the Southern District of West Virginia.
- Mentor opposes centralization in most actions; nine plaintiffs oppose, and a tag-along action (Channell) is pending in the Northern District of Texas.
- TEI opposes including the White action in the MDL, or seeks separation/remand if MDL is created.
- Court finds common questions of fact and that centralization will promote convenience, efficiency, and avoid duplicative discovery.
- Court discusses related pelvic repair MDLs and decides that SDWV is appropriate; nine Coloplast actions may otherwise disrupt ongoing MDL proceedings if moved elsewhere.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether centralization in SDWV under §1407 is appropriate | Plaintiffs favor MDL centralization for efficiency. | Coloplast supports centralization; some oppose expansion to certain actions. | SDWV centralization is appropriate for coordinated pretrial proceedings. |
| Whether the White TEI action should be included in the MDL | White's injuries relate to the same overall issues; inclusion is appropriate. | TEI Surgimend is different; exclusion necessary due to distinct discovery needs. | White should not be excluded; issues are indivisible and can be coordinated with common issues. |
| Whether nine Coloplast actions should be kept in place or moved to the Mentor MDL | Some seek inclusion in the Mentor MDL No. 2004. | Moving would disrupt existing proceedings and contradict prior MDL transfer rules. | Centralization in SDWV moots disruption concerns and is preferred. |
| Whether centralization will hinder or assist efficiency and supervision | MDL centralization will prevent duplicative discovery and inconsistent rulings. | Centralization could complicate proceedings if unrelated actions are grouped. | Centralization will promote efficiency and uniform handling under a single transferee judge. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re: American Medical Systems, Inc., Pelvic Repair System Prods. Liab. Litig., 844 F.Supp.2d 1359 (2012) (supports a multi-defendant pelvic repair MDL approach)
- In re: Avaulta Pelvic Repair Sys. Prods. Liab. Litig., 746 F.Supp.2d 1362 (2010) (early pelvic repair MDL guidance)
- In re: Mentor Corp. ObTape Transobturator Sling Prods. Liab. Litig., 588 F.Supp.2d 1374 (2008) (precedent for MDL handling in pelvic repair actions)