949 F. Supp. 2d 1373
J.P.M.L.2013Background
- Thirteen actions across eight districts seek centralization under 28 U.S.C. §1407 in the Southern District of West Virginia.
- Plaintiffs in seven actions move to centralize; two Alabama actions support centralization; Cook Medical defendants oppose centralization for some claims.
- Gore objects to inclusion of Sitten (Middle District of Georgia) in the centralized MDL and seeks severance/remand of Gore claims.
- The Panel transferred multiple pelvic repair product MDLs to West Virginia in prior decisions and aims to consolidate for efficient pretrial proceedings.
- Transfers will place all related Cook products actions before Judge Joseph R. Goodwin to coordinate discovery and pretrial management.
- Schedule A lists MDL 2440 Cook pelvic repair actions; Schedule B lists related actions; Gore’s related motions addressed in separate orders.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is §1407 centralization appropriate here? | Centralization avoids duplicative discovery and inconsistent rulings. | Centralization might be unnecessary for relatively small, separate actions. | Yes; centralization appropriate. |
| Is Southern District of West Virginia the proper transferee court? | SDWV already handles related pelvic repair MDLs and can consolidate pretrial work. | Alternative districts could be suitable; concerns about transfer efficiency. | Yes; SDWV is appropriate transferee. |
| Should Cook claims be included in the MDL or severed/remanded? | Including Cook promotes uniform pretrial management across products. | Separation may be required to avoid prejudicing non-Cook defendants. | Centralization with Cook included; severance/remand not warranted for these claims. |
| Should Gore's Sitten claims be included or treated separately? | Inclusion promotes consistency with other pelvic repair MDLs. | Sitten claims moot for MDL 2440 now that transfer order addressed separately. | Gore's inclusion moot; decisions on Sitten addressed in separate orders. |
| Can pretrial proceedings be efficiently coordinated under MDL structure? | MDL structure provides unified management and avoids duplicative work. | Informal coordination suffices for a small number of actions. | MDL framework favorable for efficient pretrial management. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re: Am. Med. Sys., Inc., Pelvic Repair Sys. Prods. Liab. Litig., 844 F.Supp.2d 1359 (S.D. W. Va. 2012) (support for centralized MDLs and keeping actions whole for multi-defendant actions)
- In re: Avaulta Pelvic Support Sys. Prods. Liab. Litig., 746 F.Supp.2d 1362 (S.D. W. Va. 2010) (precedent on centralization in pelvic repair MDLs)
- In re: Coloplast Corp. Pelvic Support Sys. Prods. Liab. Litig., 883 F.Supp.2d 1348 (S.D. W. Va. 2012) (recent MDL centralization in pelvic repair context)
- In re: Mut. Funds Inv. Litig., 310 F.Supp.2d 1359 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (discretion in transferee court coordination and pretrial program design)
- In re: Seroquel Prods. Liab. Litig., 447 F.Supp.2d 1376 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (recognition that centralized actions can reduce meritless filings)