Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-4_07-cv-00936/USCOURTS-ared-4_07-cv-00936-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury-Product Liability

---

*

 Judges Heyburn and Motz did not participate in the disposition of this matter.

1

 General Electric Co., GE Healthcare Inc., and GE Healthcare Bio-Sciences Corp.

2

 Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals Inc., Bayer Healthcare LLC, Bayer Corp., and Bayer

Pharmaceuticals Corp.

3

 Mallinckrodt, Inc., Tyco International Ltd., Tyco Healthcare Ltd., Tyco Holdings Ltd., Tyco

Healthcare Group LP, and Covidien Ltd. 

4

 The Panel has been notified that 44 other related actions have been filed as follows: four actions

in the District of New Jersey; three actions each in the Eastern District of Missouri, the Eastern

District of Wisconsin, and the Northern District of West Virginia; two actions each in the Northern

District of Alabama, the Eastern District of Arkansas, the Central District of California, the District

UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL 

on 

MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

IN RE: GADOLINIUM CONTRAST DYES

PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION MDL No. 1909

TRANSFER ORDER

Before the entire Panel*

: Plaintiffs in twelve actions have moved, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1407, for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings of this litigation in the Southern District

of Ohio. The GE defendants,1 the Bayer defendants,2 the Tyco defendants,3 and defendant Novation,

LLC, support centralization, but suggest the Northern District of Ohio as transferee district. Plaintiff

in the Northern District of Alabama potentially related action supports centralization, but suggests

the District of Colorado as transferee district. Defendant Bracco Diagnostics, Inc. (Bracco) opposes

centralization of all claims against Bracco, the Tyco defendants, or the Bayer defendants; or,

alternatively, suggests creating a separate MDL for each defendant group; or, alternatively, suggests

the District of Kansas as transferee district.

This litigation currently consists of 24 actions listed on Schedule A and pending in thirteen

districts as follows: five actions in the Southern District of Ohio; four actions each in the Northern

District of Ohio and the Middle District of Tennessee; two actions in the Western District of Texas;

and one action each in the Eastern District of Arkansas, the Central District of California, the

District of Colorado, the Northern District of Georgia, the Western District of Louisiana, the District

of Minnesota, the Western District of Missouri, the District of South Carolina, and the Southern

District of Texas.4

Case 4:07-cv-00936-JLH Document 10 Filed 03/05/08 Page 1 of 5
-2-

of Colorado, the Middle District of Louisiana, the District of Maryland, and the District of

Minnesota; and one action each in the Western District of Arkansas, the Northern District of

California, the District of Connecticut, the District of District of Columbia, the Middle District of

Florida, the Central District of Illinois, the Southern District of Illinois, the Southern District of

Indiana, the District of Kansas, the Western District of Louisiana, the Western District of Missouri,

the Western District of New York, the Middle District of North Carolina, the Northern District of

Ohio, the Southern District of Ohio, the Northern District of Oklahoma, and the Eastern District of

Pennsylvania. These 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).

On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, we find that these actions involve

common questions of fact and that centralization under Section 1407 in the Northern District of Ohio

will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct

of this litigation. These actions share questions of fact arising out of the allegation that gadolinium

based contrast dyes may cause nephrogenic systemic fibrosis in patients with impaired renal

function. 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.

In opposition to centralization of all MDL No. 1909 actions, defendant Bracco argues, inter

alia, that (1) the actions do not share sufficient questions of fact because each of the contrast agents

is chemically and pharmacologically different; (2) because of the unique properties of each contrast

agent, a global MDL will impinge upon the due process rights of the separate defendant companies;

(3) when each defendant group is considered separately, there are too few actions to warrant MDL

treatment for any claims other than those involving the GE defendants; and (4) alternatives to

centralization are available and sufficient to coordinate the small number of claims involving Bracco

and the Tyco and Bayer defendants.

We are not persuaded by these arguments. Transfer under Section 1407 does not require a

complete identity or even a majority of common factual or legal issues as a prerequisite to transfer.

Transfer under Section 1407 has the salutary effect of placing all actions in this docket before a

single judge who can formulate a pretrial program that: (1) allows discovery with respect to any noncommon issues to proceed concurrently with discovery on common issues, In re Joseph F. Smith

Patent Litigation, 407 F.Supp. 1403, 1404 (J.P.M.L. 1976); and (2) ensures that pretrial proceedings

will be conducted in a manner leading to the just and expeditious resolution of all actions to the

overall benefit of the parties. The MDL No. 1909 transferee court can employ any number of

pretrial techniques – such as establishing separate discovery and/or motion tracks – to efficiently

manage this litigation. In any event, we leave the extent and manner of coordination or

consolidation of these actions to the discretion of the transferee court. In re Mutual Funds

Investment Litigation, 310 F.Supp.2d 1359 (J.P.M.L. 2004). It may be, on further refinement of the

issues and close scrutiny by the transferee judge, that some claims or actions can be remanded to

their transferor districts for trial in advance of the other actions in the transferee district. But we are

unwilling, on the basis of the record before us, to make such a determination at this time. Should

the transferee judge deem remand of any claims or actions appropriate, procedures are available

whereby this may be accomplished with a minimum of delay. See Rule 7.6, R.P.J.P.M.L., 199

Case 4:07-cv-00936-JLH Document 10 Filed 03/05/08 Page 2 of 5
-3-

F.R.D. at 436-38. We are confident in the transferee judge’s ability to streamline pretrial

proceedings in all actions, while concomitantly directing the appropriate resolution of all claims. 

We are persuaded that the Northern District of Ohio is an appropriate transferee district.

This district provides a relatively central forum for this nationwide litigation. In addition, Judge Dan

A. Polster has the time and experience to steer this docket on a prudent course.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, the actions listed on

Schedule A and pending outside the Northern District of Ohio are transferred to the Northern

District of Ohio and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Dan A. Polster for

coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with the actions pending there and listed on

Schedule A. 

PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

 

 D. Lowell Jensen

 Acting Chairman

John G. Heyburn II, Chairman* J. Frederick Motz*

Robert L. Miller, Jr. Kathryn H. Vratil

David R. Hansen Anthony J. Scirica

Case 4:07-cv-00936-JLH Document 10 Filed 03/05/08 Page 3 of 5
IN RE: GADOLINIUM CONTRAST DYES 

PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION MDL No. 1909 

SCHEDULE A

Eastern District of Arkansas

Roland Thomas v. General Electric Co., et al., C.A. No. 4:07-936

Central District of California

Cynthia Kay Mitchell v. Berlex Labs, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 5:07-433

District of Colorado

Greta Carolus, et al. v. General Electric Co., et al., C.A. No. 1:07-714

Northern District of Georgia

Mary Davis, etc. v. General Electric Co., et al., C.A. No. 4:07-202

Western District of Louisiana

Ronald E. Corkern, III v. General Electric Co., et al., C.A. No. 1:07-979

District of Minnesota

William Clark v. General Electric Co., et al., C.A. No. 0:07-3818

Western District of Missouri

Abraham Showalter, et al. v. General Electric Co., et al., C.A. No. 5:07-6102

Northern District of Ohio

John G. Walker, et al. v. Tyco Healthcare Group LP, et al., C.A. No. 1:07-741 

Beverly Rockwell, etc. v. Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., 

 C.A. No. 1:07-1564

Gwendolyn Dennis v. General Electric Co., et al., C.A. No. 1:07-2849 

James Babione v. General Electric Co., et al., C.A. No. 3:07-1977 

Southern District of Ohio

Alisha A. Hagwood, et al. v. General Electric Co., et al., C.A. No. 2:07-548 

Robert W. Murray, et al. v. General Electric Co., et al., C.A. No. 2:07-612 

Case 4:07-cv-00936-JLH Document 10 Filed 03/05/08 Page 4 of 5
 - A2 -

MDL No. 1909 Schedule A (Continued)

Southern District of Ohio (Continued)

Carolyn Hall, etc. v. General Electric Co., et al., C.A. No. 2:07-942 

Lance A. Voeltner v. General Electric Co., et al., C.A. No. 2:07-943 

Paul W. Frazier, et al. v. Bayer Corp., et al., C.A. No. 2:07-1005 

District of South Carolina

Anna White v. General Electric Co., et al., C.A. No. 2:07-1740

Middle District of Tennessee

Danielle Marie Snyder v. GE Healthcare, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 3:07-290

Jeanetta Deason v. General Electric Co., et al., C.A. No. 3:07-619

Jerry Henley, et al. v. Tyco International, Ltd., et al., C.A. No. 3:07-774

Kerry Kurt Phillips, et al. v. General Electric Co., et al., C.A. No. 3:07-824

Southern District of Texas

Lloyd Massie, et al. v. Bayer Healthcare, LLC, et al., C.A. No. 3:07-368

Western District of Texas

Donna Lee v. General Electric Co., et al., C.A. No. 5:07-825

Ray Rodriguez, et al. v. General Electric Co., et al., C.A. No. 5:07-826

Case 4:07-cv-00936-JLH Document 10 Filed 03/05/08 Page 5 of 5