Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-05270/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-05270-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1446pl Petition for Removal - Product Liability

---

IN RE: DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS, INC., PINNACLE HIP IMPLANT 

PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION MDL No. 2244

TRANSFER ORDER

Before the Panel: Plaintiff in the Northern District of California action listed on the attached

Schedule A (Lyon) moves under Panel Rule 7.1 to vacate the Panel’s order conditionally transferring

her action to MDL No. 2244. DePuy defendants1 oppose the motion. 

After considering the argument of counsel, we find that this action involves common questions

of fact with the actions previously transferred to MDL No. 2244, and that transfer under 28 U.S.C. §

1407 will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct

of the litigation. Transfer also is warranted for the reasons set out in our order directing centralization. 

In that order, we held that the Northern District of Texas was an appropriate Section 1407 forum for

actions sharing factual questions as to alleged injuries from DePuy’s Pinnacle Acetabular Cup System

hip implants. See In re: DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., Pinnacle Hip Implant Prods. Liab. Litig., 787

F.Supp. 2d 1358 (J.P.M.L. 2011). Plaintiff in Lyon claims that she suffered injuries related to the

implantation of a DePuy Pinnacle Acetabular Cup System hip implant, which she alleges caused high

blood chromium and cobalt levels and required revision surgery. Lyon thus falls within the MDL’s

ambit.

Plaintiff argues that transfer is inappropriate because federal jurisdiction is lacking over Lyon. 

The Panel consistently has held that the pendency of jurisdictional objections does not warrant vacatur. 

Plaintiff can present her motion for remand to the transferee judge.2 See, e.g., In re: Ivy, 901 F. 2d 7,

9 (2nd Cir. 1990); In re: Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. Sales Practices Litig., 170 F. Supp. 2d 1346, 1347-

48 (J.P.M.L. 2001). 

 

1

 DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., now known as Medical Device Business Services, Inc.; Johnson &

Johnson Services, Inc.; Johnson & Johnson; DePuy International Limited; and DePuy Products, Inc.

 

2

 Under Panel Rule 2.1(d), the pendency of a conditional transfer order does not limit the pretrial

jurisdiction of the court in which the subject action is pending. Between the date a remand motion

is filed and the date that transfer of the action to the MDL is finalized, a court generally has adequate

time to rule on a remand motion if it chooses to do so.

UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL

on

MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

 

 Case 3:11-md-02244-K Document 1068 Filed 12/18/19 Page 1 of 3 PageID 42058

&(57,),('$758(&23<

.$5(10,7&+(//&/(5.

By s/*THOMAS DREW DEPUTY CLERK U.S. DISTRICT COURT, NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS December 18, 2019

Case 4:19-cv-05270-PJH Document 29 Filed 12/18/19 Page 1 of 3
 PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

 Karen K. Caldwell

 Chair

Ellen Segal Huvelle R. David Proctor

Catherine D. Perry Nathaniel M. Gorton

Matthew F. Kennelly David C. Norton

-2-

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the action listed on Schedule A is transferred to the

Northern District of Texas and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable James E.

Kinkeade for inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

 

 Case 3:11-md-02244-K Document 1068 Filed 12/18/19 Page 2 of 3 PageID 42059

Case 4:19-cv-05270-PJH Document 29 Filed 12/18/19 Page 2 of 3
IN RE: DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS, INC., PINNACLE HIP IMPLANT 

PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION MDL No. 2244

SCHEDULE A 

Northern District of California

LYON v. DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 4:19-5270 

 

 Case 3:11-md-02244-K Document 1068 Filed 12/18/19 Page 3 of 3 PageID 42060

Case 4:19-cv-05270-PJH Document 29 Filed 12/18/19 Page 3 of 3