2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148118
J.P.M.L.2014Background
- Twenty-seven related product‑liability actions alleging defects in Cook Medical’s inferior vena cava (IVC) filters (fracture, migration, tilt, perforation) pending in eleven districts.
- Plaintiffs moved under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to centralize pretrial proceedings; defendants opposed centralization but supported the Southern District of Indiana if centralization were ordered.
- Cook is headquartered in Indiana; many relevant documents and witnesses located there; over half of the cases already pending in the Southern District of Indiana.
- The Panel found common factual questions concerning design, manufacture, testing, marketing, and post‑market surveillance of Cook’s IVC filters that overlap across the actions.
- The Panel concluded centralization would avoid duplicative discovery, prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, conserve judicial and party resources, and assigned the actions to Judge Richard L. Young in the Southern District of Indiana.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether cases involving Cook IVC filters should be centralized under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 | Centralization will promote efficient, coordinated pretrial proceedings and avoid duplication | Opposed to centralization or, alternatively, supported Indiana as transferee | Centralization granted; transferred to Southern District of Indiana and assigned to Judge Young |
| Whether common factual issues predominate over individualized issues | Plaintiffs: common issues (design, testing, marketing, post‑market surveillance) warrant centralization | Cook: individual facts and injuries will predominate in each case | Panel: common issues are sufficient; individualized issues typical in product‑liability suits do not defeat centralization |
| Whether differing filter models and varied injuries defeat commonality | Plaintiffs: different models can still share a common alleged defect and factual overlap | Cook: different models and injuries mean cases are distinct | Panel: different models and injuries do not preclude centralization when a common defect is alleged |
| Whether creation of an MDL will encourage meritless claim proliferation | Plaintiffs: centralization helps manage cases efficiently | Cook: MDL will encourage filing of meritless claims | Panel: rejected as a basis to deny centralization; transferee court is best situated to address frivolous claims quickly |
Key Cases Cited
- In re: Cook Med., Inc., Pelvic Repair Sys. Prods. Liab. Litig., 949 F. Supp. 2d 1373 (J.P.M.L. 2013) (products/medical‑device MDL centralization principles)
- In re: Zimmer Durom Hip Cup Prods. Liab. Litig., 717 F. Supp. 2d 1376 (J.P.M.L. 2010) (common design/manufacture issues support centralization)
- In re: MI Windows & Doors, Inc., Prods. Liab. Litig., 857 F. Supp. 2d 1374 (J.P.M.L. 2012) (different product models may be centralized when alleging common defect)
- In re: Stryker Rejuvenate and ABG II Hip Implant Prods. Liab. Litig., 949 F. Supp. 2d 1378 (J.P.M.L. 2013) (MDL centralization for multiple models with common defect allegations)
- In re: Kugel Mesh Hernia Patch Prods. Liab. Litig., 493 F. Supp. 2d 1371 (J.P.M.L. 2007) (products liability cases need not allege identical injuries to support centralization)
- In re: Seroquel Prods. Liab. Litig., 447 F. Supp. 2d 1376 (J.P.M.L. 2006) (transferee court tasked with disposing of spurious claims quickly)