997 F. Supp. 2d 1354
J.P.M.L.2014Background
- Fifty-six federal personal-injury actions (with over 170 related tag-alongs) allege that taking Pfizer’s cholesterol drug Lipitor caused plaintiffs to develop type 2 diabetes and that Pfizer failed to warn adequately.
- Plaintiffs moved under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to centralize these cases as an MDL; most plaintiffs favored the District of South Carolina as transferee; some suggested other districts.
- Pfizer opposed centralization but at oral argument said it would accept centralization in South Carolina if an MDL were created over its objection.
- The Panel previously denied a centralization motion (Lipitor I, 959 F. Supp. 2d 1375) because many actions were concentrated in South Carolina, common counsel already coordinated those cases, and defendant had agreed to informal coordination.
- Since Lipitor I, the number of actions, distinct plaintiffs’ firms, and courts has grown substantially; related state-court Lipitor suits have also been identified. The Panel found informal coordination no longer practicable.
- The Judicial Panel granted centralization, selecting the District of South Carolina and assigning Judge Richard M. Gergel to handle consolidated pretrial proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Section 1407 centralization is warranted | Increased number of cases, districts, and unique counsel makes informal coordination impracticable; MDL will conserve resources | Number of filings still relatively low; MDL may delay litigation and invite nonviable filings | Centralization warranted due to growth in actions, counsel, and districts; efficiencies expected |
| Proper transferee district | District of South Carolina preferred by majority of plaintiffs; many constituent actions already there | Opposed to centralization but amenable to South Carolina if MDL imposed | District of South Carolina selected as transferee (Judge Gergel assigned) |
| Whether MDL will encourage spurious filings | MDL will help manage and weed out nonviable claims efficiently | MDL may prompt an “avalanche” of coercive, nonviable filings | Panel rejects defendant’s concern; MDL helps identify and dispose of spurious claims quickly |
| Coordination with state-court actions | MDL will facilitate coordination between federal and related state cases by centralizing federal pretrial oversight | (Not meaningfully disputed) | MDL likely to ease coordination with state courts; favors centralization |
Key Cases Cited
- In re: Lipitor (Atorvastatin Calcium) Mktg., Sales Practices & Prods. Liab. Litig., 959 F. Supp. 2d 1375 (J.P.M.L. 2013) (prior denial of centralization; explained circumstances where denial may be revisited)
- In re: Plavix Mktg., Sales Practices & Prods. Liab. Litig. (No. II), 923 F. Supp. 2d 1376 (J.P.M.L. 2013) (MDL can facilitate coordination among federal and state courts)
- Seroquel Prods. Liab. Litig., 447 F. Supp. 2d 1376 (J.P.M.L. 2006) (centralization enables a transferee judge to recognize and dispose of spurious claims)
- In re: Cook Med., Inc., Pelvic Repair Sys. Prods. Liab. Litig., 949 F. Supp. 2d 1373 (J.P.M.L. 2013) (quoting Seroquel; rejecting argument that MDL encourages meritless filings)