In re Zoloft (Sertraline Hydrochloride) Products Liability Litigation
856 F. Supp. 2d 1347
J.P.M.L.2012Background
- Pfizer moves under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 for coordinated pretrial proceedings of 57 actions across six districts.
- Pfizer seeks centralization in the Southern District of New York or, alternatively, several other districts.
- Since the motion, >35 related actions have been identified; Greenstone supports centralization; many plaintiffs oppose or propose alternatives.
- Actions allege that Zoloft causes birth defects when ingested by pregnant mothers; common questions relate to medical causation, research, testing, and warnings.
- Panel rejects exclusions for removed actions and emphasizes efficiencies of centralized proceedings; centralization is warranted despite jurisdictional objections.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is centralization appropriate for the actions? | Plaintiffs contend centralization unnecessary and complex. | Pfizer argues centralized coordination yields efficiencies and uniform pretrial rulings. | Yes; centralization is warranted for common factual issues. |
| Is Eastern District of Pennsylvania an appropriate transferee district? | Plaintiffs dispute PA as best forum and favor other districts. | PA is suitable; most related actions are there and it enables coordination with state-court actions. | Yes; Eastern District of Pennsylvania is appropriate. |
| Should removed actions be excluded from centralized proceedings? | Removed actions should be excluded due to remand or unique jurisdictional issues. | Exclusion unnecessary; jurisdictional objections do not defeat centralization. | No; removed actions should be included. |
| Will centralization promote efficiency and consistency? | Coordination may be beneficial but depends on the court. | Centralization reduces duplicative discovery and conflicting rulings. | Yes; centralization will promote efficiency and consistency. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Ivy, 901 F.2d 7 (2nd Cir. 1990) (jurisdictional objections do not defeat MDL efficiencies)
- In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. Sales Practices Litig., 170 F.Supp.2d 1346 (N.D. Ill. 2001) (centralization can yield efficiencies despite objections)
- In re Zimmer Durom Hip Cup Prods. Liab. Litig., 717 F.Supp.2d 1376 (J.P.M.L. 2010) (centralization does not require complete identity of parties)
- In re Navistar 6.0 L Diesel Engine Prods. Liab. Litig., 777 F.Supp.2d 1347 (J.P.M.L. 2011) (centralization feasible with overlapping issues)
- In re Darvocet, Darvon & Propoxyphene Prods. Liab. Litig., 780 F.Supp.2d 1379 (J.P.M.L. 2011) (discovery coordination across actions can yield efficiencies)
- In re Vytorin/Zetia Mktg., Sales Practices & Prods. Liab. Litig., 543 F.Supp.2d 1378 (J.P.M.L. 2008) (panel notes benefits of centralized handling of drug-related claims)
- In re Viagra Prods. Liab. Litig., 414 F.Supp.2d 1357 (J.P.M.L. 2006) (management of multi-district litigation proceedings)