Case ID: f-supp-2d_493/html/1376-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "D. LOWELL JENSEN, Acting Chairman.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

In re MIRAPEX PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION.
    No. 1836.
    Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.
    June 22, 2007.
    
      Before WM. TERRELL HODGES, Chairman, D. LOWELL JENSEN, J. FREDERICK MOTZ, ROBERT L. MILLER, Jr., KATHRYN H. VRATIL, DAVID R. HANSEN and ANTHONY J. SCIRICA, Judges of the Panel.
    
      
       Judges Hodges and Miller took no part in the disposition of this matter.
    
   TRANSFER ORDER

D. LOWELL JENSEN, Acting Chairman.

This litigation currently consists of 54 actions pending in the District of Minnesota, and one action pending in each of the following districts: the Northern District of California, the District of Maryland, the Western District of Missouri, and the Western District of Washington. Common defendants in the actions move the Panel, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, for an order centralizing this litigation in either the Southern District of New York or the District of Connecticut. Responding plaintiffs oppose transfer. In the event that the Panel orders centralization over their objections, responding plaintiffs support selection of the District of Minnesota as transferee forum.

On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, the Panel finds that these 58 actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization under Section 1407 in the District of Minnesota will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. All these actions involve common factual allegations concerning the alleged adverse side effects of the drug Mirapex, and the timeliness and adequacy of defendants’ warnings concerning those side effects. Centralization under Section 1407 is necessary in order to eliminate duplicative discovery, prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel and the judiciary.

We conclude that the District of Minnesota is an appropriate transferee forum in this docket because i) this district has the most advanced of the 58 actions; ii) the judge there has had an opportunity to become familiar with the litigation; and iii) Minneapolis is easily accessible.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, the actions in this litigation pending outside the District of Minnesota and listed on Schedule A are transferred to the District of Minnesota and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable James M. Rosenbaum for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with the actions pending in that district and listed on Schedule A.

SCHEDULE A

MDL-1836—In re Mirapex Products Liability Litigation

Northern District of California
Therese Bottiglieri v. Pfizer Inc., et al., C.A. No. 3:06-3248
District of Maryland
William David Livingston, et al. v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 1:06-1887
District of Minnesota
Gary Selinsky, et al. v. Boehringer In-gelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 0:06-873
Robert M. Zwayer, et al. v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 0:06-874
Michael A. Dubaich, et al. v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 0:06-875
Donald J. Nelsen v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 0:06-876
Larry Webb, et al. v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 0:06-898
Timothy Harms v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 0:06-899
Timothy L. Estep v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 0:06-900
Mary Conway v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 0:06-901
Dennis M. Scharpen, et al. v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 0:06-1206
Gary E. Charbonneau, et al. v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 0:06-1215
Todd R. Cain v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 0:06-1582
Manuel A. Quintela, et al. v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 0:06-1675
Thaddeus R. Fayard v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 0:06-2144
Hylton H. Dodd v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 0:06-2145
Michael W. Averitt, et al. v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 0:06-2194
William F. Courtney, et al. v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 0:06-2546
Richard I. Bloom, et al. v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 0:06-2577
Joyce A. Anderson v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 0:06-2578
Kathleen R. Frye, et al. v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 0:06-2662
Cynthia Harris, et al. v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 0:06-3009
Daniel M. Hayward, et al. v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 0:06-3180
Daniel F. Neal v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 0:06-3182
Peggy J. Bronson v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 0:06-3254
Theresa R. Seaman, et al. v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 0:06-3255
Madeline J. Vingers v. Boehringer In-gelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 0:06-3284
Irene M. Conejo v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 0:06-3519
Melody S. Erickson v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 0:06-3526
Alan Kite, et al. v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 0:06-3527
George P. Wagner v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 0:06-3537
Gordon J. Haughey, et al. v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 0:06-3539
Stella C. Rush, et al. v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 0:06-3544

SCHEDULE A — Continued SCHEDULE A — Continued

Carl M. Milam, et al. v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 0:06-3778
Floyd Wayne Kanuch v. Boehringer In-gelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 0:06-3839
Rick James Berger v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 0:06-4358
Mark Mayer v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 0:06-4366
Resa King, et al. v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 0:06-4502
George Konrad v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 0:06-4699
Steven Purser, et al. v. Boehringer In-gelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 0:06-4783
Barbara Goldman, et al. v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 0:06-4784
James Holmes, et al. v. Boehringer In-gelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 0:06-4785
Florene D. Saracco v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 0:06-4827
Greg Stutz v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 0:06-4828
Thomas M. Celorie v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 0:06-4868
Maryann J. Deleo, et al. v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 0:06-4869
William Chamberlain, et al. v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 0:06-4870
Ronald P. Markel, et al. v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 0:06-4871
Hilarle Pearce v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 0:06-4944
Linda Michels, et al. v. Boehringer In-gelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 0:06-4945
David Emery, et al. v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 0:06-4946
Richard Scott Brown v. Boehringer In-gelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 0:06-4947
William Gage, et al. v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 0:06-4948
Carolyn Paulette Shows, et al. v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 0:06-4949
Michele C. Glancy, et al. v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 0:06-5123
Tza Ping Aliya Lee, et al. v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 0:07-39
Western District of Missouri
Wayne Jackson, et al. v. Boehringer In-gelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 4:06-969
Western District of Washington
Matthew Andresen, et al. v. Pfizer Inc., et al., C.A. No. 2:06-1413 
      
      . In addition to these 58 actions, the Panel has been notified of more than 50 related actions. These actions and any other related actions will be treated as potential tag-along actions. See Rules 7.4 and 7.5, R.P.J.P.M.L., 199 F.R.D. 425, 435-36 (2001).