261 F. Supp. 3d 1351
J.P.M.L.2017Background
- Plaintiffs filed 161 federal personal-injury and wrongful-death actions alleging proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs) caused kidney injuries (mostly chronic kidney disease) and that defendants failed to warn.
- Cases name multiple manufacturers (AstraZeneca, Takeda, Pfizer, P&G, Novartis entities) with many "mixed-use" complaints alleging use of more than one PPI.
- A prior Panel denial of centralization (Proton-Pump I) was based on product/defendant differences, defendant-specific discovery, competitive concerns, and limited case count; circumstances have since changed.
- The number of related federal and state actions, venues, and plaintiffs’ firms increased substantially since Proton-Pump I; several major defendants now support centralization.
- The Panel concluded that formal MDL centralization would eliminate duplicative discovery, avoid inconsistent pretrial rulings, enable federal-state coordination, and conserve resources despite management complexities.
- The Panel selected the District of New Jersey (Judge Claire C. Cecchi) as transferee district and denied requests to carve out Takeda or certain Novartis entities from the MDL at this stage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether to centralize PPI cases under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 | Centralize in D. N.J. (or S.D. Ill.) to manage growing, related docket and prevent inconsistent rulings | Varied: some oppose centralization (Takeda, NCH) or prefer alternative districts; concerns about multi-product/competitor issues and defendant-specific discovery | Centralization granted; MDL created in District of New Jersey for coordinated pretrial proceedings |
| Whether prior denial (Proton-Pump I) forecloses new centralization | Growth in number of cases and parties justifies re-consideration | Reliance on Proton-Pump I to oppose centralization | Prior denial not dispositive; significant change in circumstances justified new MDL |
| Whether Takeda (and its claims) should be excluded from MDL | Plaintiffs: include all manufacturers to address mixed-use cases efficiently | Takeda: sued in minority of cases; argued for exclusion | Exclusion denied; mixed-use and overlapping claims warrant inclusion in MDL |
| Whether Novartis entities should be excluded or treated differently | Plaintiffs: include appropriate defendants (treated through C.T.O. process for tag-alongs) | NCH and certain Novartis entities: oppose centralization or exclusion if MDL ordered | Inclusion questions for tag-along/otherwise-sued Novartis entities reserved for conditional transfer order process; current non-sued Novartis entities not before Panel |
Key Cases Cited
- In re: Plavix Mktg., Sales Practices & Prods. Liab. Litig. (No. II), 923 F. Supp. 2d 1376 (J.P.M.L. 2013) (Panel may grant follow-up centralization when significant changes occur)
- In re: Lipitor (Atorvastatin Calcium) Mktg., Sales Practices & Prods. Liab. Litig. (No. II), 997 F. Supp. 2d 1354 (J.P.M.L. 2014) (granting follow-up centralization where related actions and districts multiplied)
- In re: AndroGel Prods. Liab. Litig., 24 F. Supp. 3d 1378 (J.P.M.L. 2014) (industry-wide MDL appropriate where many plaintiffs used multiple products and separating tracks would be impractical)