In re Proton-Pump Inhibitor Products Liability Litigation
ORDER DENYING TRANSFER
Before the Panel: Plaintiffs in six actions
All responding plaintiffs suрport centralization, although there is some disagreement concerning an appropriate transferеe district. Some plaintiffs support the Middle District of Louisiana as their first choice, while others argue for the Southern Distriсt of Illinois, the Western District of Louisiana, or the District of New Jersey.
■'On the basis of thе papers filed and the hearing session held, we deny plaintiffs’ motion. We recognize that these actions share certain factual issues. These issues arise from plaintiffs’ allegations that taking proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) may result in various typеs of kidney injury, including acute interstitial nephritis (AIN), chronic kidney disease, end stage renal disease, and kidney failure. Several considerations, however, fatally undercut the case for centralization.
First, the named defendants vary from aсtion to action. .Although AstraZeneca is sued in most of the actions (14 constituent actions and 23 tag-alongs), P & G is sued in only eight, Takeda in four, and Pfizer in two. Centralization thus appears unlikely to serve the convenience of most, if not all,
Second, the various defendants are. competitors. We are “typically hesitant,to centralize litigation against multiple, comрeting defendants which marketed, manufactured and sold similar products.” In re: Yellow Brass Plumbing Component Prods. Liab. Litig.,
Third, a significant amount of the discovery in these actions appears almost сertain to be defendant-specific. Although all the subject drugs are PPIs, they are not identical. Some are availаble by prescription only, whereas others are sold' over-the-counter. Each has a unique development, testing, and marketing history, and each was approved by the FDA at different times.
Finally, although plаintiffs almost guarantee that the number of involved actions will increase by. the hundreds if not thousands,
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion for 'centralization of these actions is denied.
SCHEDULE A
MDL No. 1862 — IN RE: PROTON-PUMP INHIBITOR PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION
Eastern District of California
THOMAS v. TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC, ET AL., C.A. NO. 1:16-01566
Southern District of Illinois
MASON v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:16-00493
District of Kansas
KOON v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:16-02605
Middle District of Louisiana
DAVIS v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:16-00686
Western District of Louisiana
MODICUE v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS L P, ET AL., C.A. No. 6:16-01444
Western District of Missouri •
FOSTER v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, ET AL., C.A. No. 4:16-01106
RATSHIDAHO v. ASTRAZENECA LP, ET AL., C.A. No. 6:16-03417
District of New Jersey
GOODSTEIN v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:16-05143
SPRATT v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, ET AL, C.A. No. 2:16-05523
Eastern District of New York
BUZBEE v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:16-02934
MULLEN v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:16-04801
Northern District of New York
HORNFECK v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, ET AL., C.A. No. 5:16-01243
Southern District of Ohio
BURNETT v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:16-00894
Western District of Tennessee
BOWERS v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:16-02549
Southern District of West Virginia
CHURCH, ET AL. v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:16-07910
Notes
. ■ The six actions are Eastern District of California ThomaSj Middle District of Louisiana Davis, Western District of Louisiana Modicue, Western District of Missouri Foster and Ratsh-idaho, and Northern District of New York Homfeck.
. Like moving plaintiffs, most responding plaintiffs support one or more- other districts in the alternative, including the Southern District of Illinois, the District of Kansas, the Middle District of Louisiana, the Western District of Louisiana, the District of New Jersey, and the Southern District of Ohio.
, Responding , defendants аre AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, AstraZeneca LP, and McKesson Corporation (collectively AstraZ-eneca); Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc., Takeda Pharmaceuticals International, Inc., Takeda Dеvelopment Center America, Inc., Takeda California, Inc., and Takeda Pharmaceuticals America, Inc. (collectively Takeda); The Procter & Gamble Company (P & G); and Pfizer Inc. (Pfizer).
. In the alternative, AstraZeneca and Takeda advocate centralization in the District of Delaware.
. In October 2014, the Food and Drug Administration, iri response-to a petition filed by Public Citizen, required consistent labeling regarding the risk of AIN on all prescription PPIs. The FDA noted that “the prescription PPI labeling should be consistent with regard to this risk,” and that “there is reasonable evidence of a causal association." The FDA, howevеr, denied the petition with respect to over-the-counter PPIs.
. In their principal brief (filed October 17, 2016), moving plaintiffs stated that they “anticipate[d]” that "nearly 100 PPI cases will be filed in the coming weeks and the number of filed cases will increasе by the hundreds in the coming months.”- Mem', in Supp. of Pis.’ Mot. for Transfer, at 1-2 (ECF No. 1-1).
.At oral argument; various counsel referred to the pendency of approximately 100 related federal actions total. The Panel takes this opportunity to remind counsel of their obligations under Panel Rule 6.2(d) (“Any party or .counsel in a new group of actions under consideration for transfer under Section . 1407 shall promptly notify the Clerk of the Panel of any potential tag-along actions in which that party is also named or in which that counsel appears.”) (emphasis added).