Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-4_06-cv-00476/USCOURTS-ared-4_06-cv-00476-0/pdf.json

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

---

1

Doc. No. 11.

2

Doc. No. 19.

3

28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(11)(C).

4

0:06-CV-3120-DWF-JJG (D. Minn. filed July 26, 2006).

5

Doc. No. 15. 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

WESTERN DIVISION

In re: 

PREMPRO PRODUCTS LIABILITY 

LITIGATION

TERESA WHITE, et al

v.

WYETH, INC., et al.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

MDL Docket No. 4:03CV1507-WRW

 4:06CV00476

 PLAINTIFFS

 

 DEFENDANTS

ORDER

Pending is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Transfer and Remove from the MDL for Want of

Jurisdiction Under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (d)(11)(C).1 Defendants have responded.2

Plaintiffs contend that, under CAFA, this case could not be transferred to the MDL

“unless a majority of the plaintiffs in the action request transfer pursuant to section 1407.”3

Since the majority of Plaintiffs did not consent to a 1407 transfer, Plaintiffs contend that the case

should be transferred back to the Southern District of West Virginia. Plaintiffs also rely on Yobs,

et al v. Wyeth, et al.,4 “another multi-plaintiff action filed by plaintiffs’ counsel in Minnesota.”5

Case 4:06-cv-00476-BRW Document 20 Filed 02/27/07 Page 1 of 3
6

Id.

7

28 U.S.C. § 1332 (11)(B)(1) (emphasis added). 

8

White v. Wyeth, et al, 2:06-CV-00080 (S.D. Va. filed February 3, 2006), Doc. No. 1.

9

Id.

2

Plaintiffs contend that “the same provision that prohibited transfer of Yobs to the MDL applies

here, and is the basis for plaintiffs’ request to transfer . . . .”6

The CAFA consent requirement Plaintiffs rely on applies to “mass actions” not class

actions. According to CAFA, a “mass action” is:

any civil action (except a civil action within the scope of section 1711(2) [i.e., a class

action]) in which monetary relief claims of 100 or more persons are proposed to be

tried jointly on the ground that the plaintiffs’ claims involve common questions of

law or fact, except that jurisdiction shall exist only over those plaintiffs whose claims

in a mass action satisfy the jurisdictional amount requirements under subsection (a).7

A review of Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint makes it clear that this is a class action, not a

mass action. Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint, reads: “Plaintiffs Teresa White, Blodwyn Doerfler,

Marilyn Settle, and Janie Lea Wood, bring this lawsuit . . . on behalf of themselves and a class of

others similarly situated.”8 Plaintiffs “seek certification of this action pursuant to West Virginia

Rule of Civil Procedure 23, a class consisting of . . . .”9 Additionally, Plaintiffs conduct a full

analysis of their claims under Rule 23 in a section of the Amended Complaint titled “The Class

Action.”

Neither CAFA’s “mass action” section nor Yobs, et al v. Wyeth, et al support Plaintiffs’

argument. Since this case is not a mass action, CAFA’s § 1407 transfer consent requirement

does not apply. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Transfer and Remove from the MDL for

Want of Jurisdiction (Doc. No. 11) is DENIED.

Case 4:06-cv-00476-BRW Document 20 Filed 02/27/07 Page 2 of 3
10See Hearing Tr. 36, December 15, 2006.

3

Regarding Plaintiffs’ personal injury class action claims, Plaintiffs should review my

comments made during the December 15, 2006.10 Plaintiffs may file a Motion for Class

Certification with a supporting brief of no more than twelve pages by Tuesday, March 12, 2007. 

If Plaintiffs file such a motion and brief, Defendants may file a response and brief (no more than

ten pages) by Thursday, March 22, 2007. 

IT IS SO ORDERED this 27th day of February, 2007.

 /s/ Wm. R.Wilson,Jr. 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:06-cv-00476-BRW Document 20 Filed 02/27/07 Page 3 of 3