Victoria Looper v. Cook Incorporated, 20 F.4th 387

Background

MDL in the Southern District of Indiana coordinated thousands of product‑liability suits against Cook over allegedly defective IVC filters under 28 U.S.C. § 1407.
Plaintiffs Victoria Looper (S.C.) and Sammie Lambert (Miss.) filed directly in the MDL rather than in their home districts; their home statutes of limitations are three years, Indiana’s is two.
Cook moved to dismiss under Indiana’s two‑year statute; the district court initially treated direct filings as governed by the plaintiffs’ originating states (following Dobbs) but later shifted to apply Indiana law and dismissed the cases as untimely.
The MDL used short‑form complaints that asked plaintiffs to identify the district where venue would be proper absent direct filing; the MDL’s case management orders and prior rulings treated direct filing as preserving originating‑forum choice‑of‑law.
The Seventh Circuit found that Cook had implicitly consented—through its prior briefs, litigation victories, and conduct in the MDL—to apply originating‑state choice‑of‑law rules to direct‑filed cases and that retroactive reversal was unfair.
Result: the Seventh Circuit reversed the dismissals and remanded; it urged MDL transferee judges to secure express, written agreement on choice‑of‑law consequences of direct filing going forward.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether direct filing in the MDL requires applying MDL‑forum choice‑of‑law (Klaxon/Van Dusen) or the originating forum’s rules	Direct filing should be treated as if filed in the originating forum (so South Carolina/Mississippi law applies)	MDL forum (Indiana) law applies because cases were actually filed there and MDL venue was independently proper	Court applied the prevailing MDL practice (Dobbs): treat direct‑filed cases as originating in plaintiffs’ home forums where parties consented; here consent was implied, so originating states’ law governs
Whether Cook’s prior positions in the MDL bound it (consent)	Cook’s earlier litigation positions and the MDL documents show consent to applying originating‑forum choice‑of‑law	Cook can take inconsistent positions across individual MDL cases because cases remain separate	Court held Cook implicitly consented by prior successful arguments and conduct; it was unfair to allow retroactive reversal in these cases
Whether absence of a formal direct‑filing order defeats plaintiffs’ reliance on the prevailing MDL practice	Plaintiffs reasonably relied on short form, case management orders, and prior rulings treating direct filing as preserving originating‑forum law	Without an actual direct‑filing order, parties didn’t consent and Klaxon/Van Dusen controls	Court found that the record showed parties and the court acted as if direct filing and the Dobbs approach governed; plaintiffs’ reliance was reasonable
Whether judicial estoppel should be applied as alternative remedy	Looper invoked judicial estoppel given Cook’s earlier success on the issue	Cook argued earlier positions were mistaken and not binding	Court declined to rest decision primarily on judicial estoppel, preferring to base outcome on implied consent; left estoppel as an alternative theory but noted its discretionary nature

Key Cases Cited

Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Elec. Mfg. Co., 313 U.S. 487 (1941) (federal courts apply choice‑of‑law rules of the state where they sit)
Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612 (1964) (transferee court applies choice‑of‑law rules of the transferor forum)
Lexecon Inc. v. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, 523 U.S. 26 (1998) (transferee courts lack authority to retain cases for trial over lack of consent)
Dobbs v. DePuy Orthopedics, Inc., 842 F.3d 1045 (7th Cir. 2016) (direct‑filed MDL suits are treated as if filed in the originating forum for choice‑of‑law purposes)
Wahl v. General Electric Co., 786 F.3d 491 (6th Cir. 2015) (adopts the originating‑forum rule for direct‑filed MDL suits)
In re Bair Hugger Forced Air Warming Devices Prods. Liab. Litig., 999 F.3d 534 (8th Cir. 2021) (endorses treating direct‑filed MDL claims as governed by originating forum law)
In re DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., 870 F.3d 345 (5th Cir. 2017) (same approach for direct‑filed MDL claims)
Gelboim v. Bank of America Corp., 574 U.S. 405 (2015) (MDL cases retain separate identities for certain purposes)
New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742 (2001) (judicial estoppel doctrine protects the integrity of judicial proceedings)