977 F.Supp.2d 885
N.D. Ill.2013Background
- This wrongful-death product-liability case concerns an Ohio resident (Eric Hayes) who died in Ohio after using a fentanyl patch prescribed, purchased, and applied in Ohio; plaintiffs are Ohio residents.
- Defendants are Delaware- and Nevada-incorporated Watson entities with principal places of business in Utah, New Jersey, and California; the patch was designed/manufactured in Utah and distributed by a New Jersey entity; a Nevada entity holds FDA approval.
- The case was filed directly in the Northern District of Illinois under an MDL direct-filing procedure approved by the court to conserve resources; the MDL centralized coordinated pretrial proceedings.
- Plaintiffs moved for court approval of a global settlement; defendants objected, arguing Ohio law governs and requires approval by an Ohio probate court rather than the MDL transferee court.
- Plaintiffs argued California law applies (or alternatively that Ohio law would permit this court to approve); settlement agreement states it is governed by Ohio law.
- The district court concluded that Ohio law governs the settlement-approval question and that Ohio requires probate-court approval, so the court denied plaintiffs’ motion without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which state law governs settlement-approval procedure? | California law applies (case could have been filed in CA; wrongful-death statute cited) | Ohio law applies (decedent/resident/event occurred in Ohio) | Ohio law governs |
| Whether MDL transferee court's forum (Illinois) choice-of-law rules apply | Illinois rules should apply | Illinois is artificial MDL forum; origin state's rules apply | Apply law of state where case originated (Ohio) |
| Whether contractual choice-of-law clause controls | Settlement agreement chooses Ohio law | Enforce clause; choice is valid | Enforce Ohio choice-of-law provision |
| Whether the settlement can be approved by this court under Ohio law | This court can approve (or CA law would allow) | Ohio law requires Ohio probate-court approval | Ohio Rev. Code requires probate-court approval; MDL court denied approval |
Key Cases Cited
- Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Elec. Mfg. Co., 313 U.S. 487 (federal transferee applies forum state choice-of-law rules)
- In re Temporomandibular Joint (TMJ) Implants Prods. Liab. Litig., 97 F.3d 1050 (MDL transferee applies state law that would have applied absent transfer)
- Indem. Ins. Co. of N. Am. v. Hanjin Shipping Co., 348 F.3d 628 (federal recognition/enforcement of contractual choice-of-law clauses)
- Washington Mut. Bank, FA v. Superior Court of Orange Cty., 24 Cal.3d 906 (California requires issue-by-issue choice-of-law analysis)
- Nedlloyd Lines B.V. v. Superior Court of San Mateo Cty., 3 Cal.4th 459 (limits on enforcing choice-of-law when public policy or substantial relationship concerns arise)
- McCluskey v. Rob San Servs., Inc., 443 F. Supp. 65 (Ohio court recognition of releases executed outside Ohio)