Spilotro v. C R Bard Incorporated, 2:17-cv-01804

Background

MDL created in 2015 centralized >8,000 personal-injury cases alleging C.R. Bard IVC filters (Recovery, G2, G2X, Eclipse, Meridian, Denali; plus some Simon Nitinol Filter matters) were defective and caused serious injuries or death.
The transferee court completed all common fact and general expert discovery, resolved numerous Daubert and summary‑judgment motions, held three bellwether trials (mixed results), and conducted extensive case management through dozens of CMOs.
Many cases settled; remaining cases no longer benefit from centralized proceedings and involve primarily case‑specific issues (medical records, individual fact and expert discovery, venue/jurisdiction questions).
The court suggested remand of Panel‑transferred cases (Schedule A) to their original transferor districts under 28 U.S.C. § 1407(a), and ordered transfer of direct‑filed MDL short‑form cases (Schedule B) to districts identified in the short form under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
The court preserved defendants’ rights to raise venue and personal‑jurisdiction objections in the receiving courts and recommended that the receiving courts adjudicate such forum‑specific disputes.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether remand of Panel‑transferred cases is appropriate	Many cases are ready for trial or no longer need centralized coordination; remand is efficient	Centralization still useful for resolving recurring legal issues; defendants raise venue/jurisdiction concerns	Transferee court suggested remand of Schedule A: centralized pretrial purposes fulfilled; Panel should remand under §1407(a)
Handling of direct‑filed short‑form cases after MDL closure	Short forms identified proper transferee districts; cases should go where plaintiffs designated	Defendants may contest venue/personal jurisdiction but do not oppose transfer; seek preservation of objections	Court ordered §1404(a) transfers to districts listed in short form (Schedule B); preserved defendants’ right to challenge venue/jurisdiction in receiving courts
Whether venue and personal‑jurisdiction challenges should be resolved in MDL before transfer	Plaintiffs: resolving now is more efficient and avoids statute‑of‑limitations hazards on dismissal	Defendants: disputes are fact‑specific and governed by transferee law; best left to receiving courts	Court declined to resolve such challenges; recommended transfer and left challenges to receiving courts, noting transfer (or transfer under §1406/1631) can cure dismissal concerns
Preemption of state law claims by federal medical‑device law (MDA/510(k))	Plaintiffs: state law claims not preempted because 510(k) substantial‑equivalence review generally does not impose device‑specific federal requirements	Bard: 510(k) and related FDA actions create federal requirements that preempt state law claims	Court denied Bard summary judgment on preemption, finding Lohr controls and defendants failed to prove device‑specific federal requirements that would trigger §360k preemption; defendants appealed

Key Cases Cited

Lexecon Inc. v. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, 523 U.S. 26 (1998) (Panel remand authority; transferee court typically suggests remand)
Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, 518 U.S. 470 (1996) (510(k) clearance ordinarily does not create federal requirements that preempt state common‑law claims)
Goldlawr, Inc. v. Heiman, 369 U.S. 463 (1962) (transfer versus dismissal principles; courts may transfer rather than dismiss when in interests of justice)
Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495 (9th Cir. 2000) (forum‑related analysis under §1404(a) requires balancing multi‑factor interests)
Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984) (personal jurisdiction analysis focuses on defendant‑forum‑litigation relationship)
In re Multi‑Piece Rim Products Liability Litigation, 464 F. Supp. 969 (J.P.M.L. 1979) (transferee court may suggest remand when consolidated pretrial proceedings have achieved their purpose)
In re TMJ Implants Products Liability Litigation, 872 F. Supp. 1019 (D. Minn. 1995) (example of suggesting remand where remaining issues are case‑specific)