Case ID: f-supp-2d_395/html/1358-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "WM. TERRELL HODGES, Chairman.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

In re OXYCONTIN PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION
    (NO. II)
    No. 1716.
    Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.
    Oct. 18, 2005.
    Before WM. TERRELL HODGES, Chairman, JOHN F. KEENAN, D. LOWELL JENSEN, J. FREDERICK MOTZ, ROBERT L. MILLER, Jr., KATHRYN H. VRATIL and DAVID R. HANSEN, Judges of the Panel.
   ORDER DENYING TRANSFER

WM. TERRELL HODGES, Chairman.

This litigation currently consists of 25 actions listed on the attached Schedule A and pending in seventeen districts as follows: five actions in the Southern District of Illinois; two actions each in the Central District of Illinois, the Eastern District of Kentucky, the Northern District of Texas and the Eastern District of Wisconsin; and one action each in the District of Arizona, the Eastern District of Arkansas, the Central District of California, the Middle District of Florida, the Southern District of Iowa, the District of Kansas, the Western District of Louisiana, the District of New Hampshire, the Southern District of New York, the Southern District of Ohio, and the Eastern and Southern Districts of Texas. The plaintiffs in these 25 actions move the Panel, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, for an order centralizing this litigation in the Southern District of Illinois, or, alternatively, the Southern District of New York. All responding defendants oppose transfer.

On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, the Panel finds that Section 1407 centralization would neither serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses nor further the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. Movants have failed to demonstrate that any common questions of fact and law are sufficiently complex, unresolved and/or numerous to justify Section 1407 transfer in this docket where i) pretrial proceedings are already advanced in certain of the constituent actions, and ii) plaintiffs in all actions subject to the transfer motion are represented by common counsel.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, for centralization of the actions listed on Schedule A is denied.

SCHEDULE A

MDL-1716 — In re OxyContin Products Liability Litigation (No. II)

District of Arizona

Frank D. Marcum v. Purdue Pharma Co., et al., C.A. No. 2:04-1824

Eastern District of Arkansas

Michael R. Engle v. Purdue Pharma Co., et al., C.A. No. 4:04-602

Central District of California

Shari J. Sanders v. Purdue Pharma Co., et al., C.A. No. 2:04-4665

Middle District of Florida

Daniel B. Timmons v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al., C.A. No. 8:04-1479

Central District of Illinois

Michael J. Collins v. Purdue Pharma Co., et al., C.A. No. 3:04-3279
James E. Plowman v. Purdue Pharma Co., et al., C.A. No. 3:04-3280

Southern District of Illinois

Robert G. Savant v. Purdue Pharma Co., et al., C.A. No. 3:04-394
Betty F. McKane v. Purdue Pharma Co., et al., C.A. No. 3:04-395
Marie L. Cavenaile v. Purdue Pharma Co., et al., C.A. No. 3:04-401
Cathy D. Wilken, et al. v. Purdue Pharma Co., et al., C.A. No. 3:04-402
Timothy Wilkes v. Purdue Pharma Co., et al., C.A. No. 3:04-403

Southern District of Iowa

Chelly Griffith v. Purdue Pharma Co., et al., C.A. No. 3:04-10072

District of Kansas

William J. Honeyman v. Purdue Pharma Co., et al., C.A. No. 2:04-2411

Eastern District of Kentucky

Jack P. Marcum v. Purdue Pharma Co., et al., C.A. No. 2:04-152
Phillip L. Crabtree v. Purdue Pharma Co., et al., C.A. No. 6:04-294

Western District of Louisiana

Enrique Angulo v. Purdue Pharma Co., et al., C.A. No. 1:04-1638

District of New Hampshire

Charlene E. Franz v. Purdue Pharma Co., et al., C.A. No. 1:05-201

Southern District of New York

Donald Pratt v. Purdue Pharma Co., et al., C.A. No. 1:04-2100

Southern District of Ohio

Victoria A. Cook v. Purdue Pharma Co., et al., C.A. No. 1:04-530

Eastern District of Texas

Cynthia A. McKnight v. Purdue Pharma Co., et al., C.A. No. 9:04-116

Northern District of Texas

Eric J. Koenig, et al. v. Purdue Pharma Co., et al., C.A. No. 3:04-1590
Charlie L. Lee, Jr. v. Purdue Pharma Co., et al., C.A. No. 3:04-1697

Southern District of Texas

Michael R. Engle, et al. v. Purdue Pharma Co., et al., C.A. No. 4:04-2407

Eastern District of Wisconsin

Kay H. Freund v. Purdue Pharma Co., et al., C.A. No. 1:04-611
Teddy L. Farris v. Purdue Pharma Co., et al., C.A. No. 2:04-736 
      
      . The Section 1407 motion, as originally filed, included six additional actions: one action pending in the Middle District of Georgia, Cornelia Taylor v. Purdue Pharma Co., et al., C.A. No. 5:04-197; one action pending in the Northern District of Mississippi, Gregory Suber, Sr. v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al., C.A. No. 4:03-97; one action pending in the Southern District of Mississippi, Henry Butch Turner v. Purdue Pharma Co., et al., C.A. No. 3:04-403; two actions pending in the Southern District of New York, Linda Terry v. Purdue Pharma Co., et al., C.A. No. 1:04-2102, and Danielle Chaballa v. P.F. Laboratories, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 1:05-3500; and one action pending in the Southern District of Ohio, Judy Wethington, et al. v. Purdue Pharma LP, et al., C.A. No. 01:01-441. Subsequently, i) movants determined that the Southern District of New York Chaballa action had been included on their Section 1407 motion in error, and they amended their motion to withdraw the action from the Panel’s consideration; ii) the Northern District of Mississippi action was dismissed pursuant to a grant of summary judgment for the defendants; and iii) the remaining four actions have been resolved pursuant to stipulations of dismissal entered into by the parties to the actions. Accordingly, the question of Section 1407 transfer with respect to these six actions is moot.