76 F. Supp. 3d 294
D. Mass.2015Background
- MDL consolidated ~2,500 products-liability actions against Fresenius (FMCNA) alleging GranuFlo/NaturaLyte used in hemodialysis caused elevated bicarbonate, increasing risk of cardiopulmonary/sudden cardiac arrest and death.
- The motion addressed 127 Mississippi-origin cases filed more than three years after the alleged injury/death; defendants moved to dismiss as time-barred.
- The court adopted CMO-7, which permits direct filing into the MDL and required plaintiffs to file Short Form Complaints that designate a “home forum” (Massachusetts or another district).
- Dispute whether choice-of-law for statute-of-limitations purposes should follow the original filing forum, the Short Form “home forum” designation, or the place of injury/use.
- Court categorized cases into five groups (based on where filed and home-forum choice) and determined which state choice-of-law rules apply to each group.
- Applying those choice-of-law rules, the court analyzed Massachusetts and Mississippi statutes of limitations and discovery rules and rejected plaintiffs’ general fraudulent-concealment tolling allegations as insufficiently specific.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which forum’s choice-of-law rule governs MDL-direct-filed cases and Short Form “home forum” designations? | Short Form designation should control; plaintiffs may select home forum (deference to plaintiff’s forum choice). | Short Form is administrative/venue-only; cannot change substantive choice-of-law—use place of injury/use. | Court: Treat Short Form home-forum designation as the originating forum for direct-filed plaintiffs; apply that state’s choice-of-law rules. |
| For previously-filed Mississippi cases that elected Massachusetts as home forum on Short Form, does CMO-7 change the originating forum for choice-of-law? | CMO-7 amends complaints and permits changing home forum to Massachusetts, so Massachusetts rules should apply. | CMO-7 did not clearly permit altering originating forum for choice-of-law; Van Dusen principle forbids changing substantive law by administrative transfer. | Court: For cases originally filed in Mississippi, CMO-7 does not change originating forum for choice-of-law; Mississippi choice-of-law applies. |
| Under Massachusetts choice-of-law, which statute of limitations applies? | Massachusetts has substantial interest (defendant headquartered and alleged misconduct in MA); thus MA limitations can apply. | Defendants argued Mississippi has more significant relationship (injury occurred in MS) so MA SOL should not apply. | Court: For categories where MA choice-of-law governs, MA has a substantial interest and MA statute of limitations and discovery rule apply. |
| Under Mississippi law, when do claims accrue and does discovery/cause-of-action require knowledge of causation? | Plaintiffs urged latent-injury and discovery tied to biochemical injury or later knowledge of link to product; fraud tolling alleged. | Defendants argued injuries (cardiac arrest/death) were obvious and not latent; MS discovery rule accrues at discovery of injury (not cause); plaintiffs’ fraud allegations are conclusory. | Court: Applied Mississippi’s narrow discovery rule (accrual upon discovery of injury, causation irrelevant); cardiac arrest/death are not latent; plaintiffs’ fraudulent-concealment allegations insufficiently particular. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading must state a plausible claim to survive dismissal)
- Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Elec. Mfg. Co., 313 U.S. 487 (federal courts must follow forum state choice-of-law rules in diversity cases)
- Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612 (transfer for convenience does not change substantive law applicable)
- Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235 (choice-of-law principles on transfer/venue)
- In re Volkswagen Audi Warranty Extension Litig., 692 F.3d 4 (MDL choice-of-law discussion; transferor-court rules often applied)
- Mercier v. Sheraton Int’l, Inc., 981 F.2d 1345 (deference to plaintiff’s choice of forum)
- Rodi v. Southern New England School of Law, 389 F.3d 5 (statute-of-limitations dismissal at Rule 12 requires showing claim is time-barred beyond doubt)
- Genereux v. American Beryllia Corp., 577 F.3d 350 (Massachusetts discovery rule requires individualized inquiry)