717 F.Supp.3d 1370
J.P.M.L.2024Background
- Plaintiffs in multiple actions alleged injuries—including gastroparesis, ileus, and other gastrointestinal harms—from GLP-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) medications like Ozempic, Wegovy, Rybelsus (Novo Nordisk) and Trulicity, Mounjaro (Eli Lilly).
- Movants sought to centralize litigation under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 in the Western District of Louisiana, while also proposing other districts based on defendants or product lines.
- The key dispute was whether to include claims against both manufacturers (Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly) in a single multidistrict litigation (MDL), or to segment the claims based on the specific defendant and medication.
- The Panel noted the substantial increase in GLP-1 RA prescriptions and anticipated that related cases would number in the thousands.
- The Panel highlighted overlapping issues of fact among cases, especially those involving plaintiffs who took products from both manufacturers.
- The Panel ultimately centralized actions in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania before Judge Gene E. K. Pratter, consolidating pretrial proceedings for efficiency and consistency.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of centralized MDL | Centralize all GLP-1 RA claims including both manufacturers | Novo Nordisk: favor full MDL; Eli Lilly: oppose inclusion | Centralize all claims vs. both defendants in one MDL |
| Centralization preferable to alternatives | Centralization will avoid inconsistent rulings/duplication | Opponents: informal cooperation or split MDL is preferable | Centralization is superior to alternatives |
| Appropriate transferee district | Western District of Louisiana or others based on manufacturer | Various, linked to HQs or regional connections | Assign to Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
| Duplicative discovery/separating claims | Excluding Eli Lilly causes inefficiency and double efforts | Separation preferred due to distinct drugs/regulatory histories | Consolidation best avoids duplication and procedural complexity |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Darvon, Darvocet & Propoxyphene Prods. Liab. Litig., 780 F. Supp. 2d 1379 (J.P.M.L. 2011) (common issues are sufficient for centralization even if all are not identical)
- In re Hair Relaxer Mktg., Sales Pracs., & Prods. Liab. Litig., 655 F. Supp. 3d 1374 (J.P.M.L. 2023) (centralizing actions with multiple competing defendants/products)
- In re Proton-Pump Inhibitor Prods. Liab. Litig. (No. II), 261 F. Supp. 3d 1351 (J.P.M.L. 2017) (class-wide centralization appropriate where products share key properties)
- In re Invokana (Canagliflozin) Prods. Liab. Litig., 223 F. Supp. 3d 1345 (J.P.M.L. 2016) (Panel generally wary of industry-wide MDLs)
- In re AndroGel Prods. Liab. Litig., 24 F. Supp. 3d 1378 (J.P.M.L. 2014) (multi-defendant consolidation appropriate when claims are too intertwined to separate)
- In re Incretin Mimetics Prods. Liab. Litig., 968 F. Supp. 2d 1345 (J.P.M.L. 2013) (MDL can include competing manufacturers with similar products and injury theories)