Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-07226/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-07226-0/pdf.json

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

---

IN RE: ZANTAC (RANITIDINE)

PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION MDL No. 2924

TRANSFER ORDER

Before the Panel:*

 Plaintiffs in five actions listed on Schedule A1

 move under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1407 to centralize pretrial proceedings in the actions listed on Schedule A in the District of New

Jersey or, alternatively, the Southern District of Florida. This litigation consists of fifteen actions

pending in nine districts. Plaintiffs in all of the actions allege that the heartburn medication

Zantac—and specifically the ranitidine molecule, its active ingredient—breaks down to form an

alleged carcinogen known as N-Nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA). Nine of these actions are brought

by individual plaintiffs asserting personal injury claims. Six are brought on behalf of putative classes

of consumers seeking refunds and other economic damages stemming from their purchases of

Zantac. In addition to the actions on the motion, the parties have notified the Panel of 126 related

actions pending in 21 districts.2

With one exception, all parties support centralization,3 but disagree as to the transferee

*

Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle took no part in the decision of this matter. Additionally, one or

more Panel members who could be members of the putative classes in this litigation have renounced

their participation in these classes and have participated in this decision. 

1

 Movants consist of plaintiffs in the following actions: Northern District of California Garza;

District of Connecticut Dimesky and Cravens; and District of New Jersey Santorella and Cravens.

2

 These and any other related actions are potential tag-along actions. See Panel Rules 1.1(h),

7.1, and 7.2.

3

 Plaintiffs in Southern District of New York Koppell request that their action be excluded

from any MDL because their claims relate to generic ranitidine manufactured by non-common

defendants (Perrigo Company PLC and Perrigo Research & Development Company). They argue

that no evidence exists that the Perrigo-manufactured ranitidine shares the same manufacturing

process, component suppliers, or the same source of contamination as brand-name Zantac. The

Koppell defendants oppose excluding Koppell from the MDL.

Plaintiffs’ arguments with respect to Koppell, a potential tag-along action, are premature. 

See In re DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., Pinnacle Hip Implant Prods. Liab. Litig., 787 F. Supp. 2d 1358,

(continued...)

Case MDL No. 2924 Document 198 Filed 02/06/20 Page 1 of 5

UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL

on

MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

Patrick Edwards Feb 6, 2020

Case 3:19-cv-07226-EMC Document 11 Filed 02/06/20 Page 1 of 5
-2-

district for this litigation. In their papers, plaintiffs proposed a number of transferee districts, either

in the first instance or in the alternative, including the Central District of California, the Northern

District of California, the Middle District of Florida, the Southern District of Florida, the Northern

District of Illinois, the Southern District of Mississippi, the District of New Jersey, the Southern

District of New York, the Southern District of Ohio, and the Eastern District of Tennessee. At oral

argument, however, most plaintiffs appeared to have coalesced around the Southern District of

Florida as their first choice for transferee district. The common defendants—each of which

manufactured, sold, or distributed Zantac—support centralization in the District of New Jersey or,

alternatively, in the Southern District of New York.4

On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, we find that the actions listed on

Schedule A involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Southern District of

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

conduct of this litigation. These actions share factual questions arising from allegations that

ranitidine, the active molecule in Zantac and similar heartburn medications, can form the carcinogen

NDMA, either during storage or when metabolized in the human body. Plaintiffs uniformly allege

that the manufacturers, sellers, and distributors of Zantac and other ranitidine medications knew or

should have known that these medications exposed consumers to NDMA, and that defendants

concealed the NDMA-associated dangers posed to consumers by these products. General causation

issues, in particular, likely will be common across all the actions and would benefit greatly from

coordinated treatment. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent

pretrial rulings (including with respect to class certification and Daubert motion practice); and

conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary.

Furthermore, the centralized proceedings should include both the related personal injury

actions, in which plaintiffs allege that they developed cancer as a result of NDMA formed from

Zantac, and the related consumer class actions, in which plaintiffs allege that they suffered economic

losses as a result of defendants’ alleged concealment of the NDMA-associated dangers posed by

Zantac. The core factual issues in the personal injury actions will be the same as in the consumer

class actions—in particular, how ranitidine allegedly forms NDMA; the nature and extent of the

health risks posed by NDMA and the NDMA levels at issue; defendants’ knowledge of the NDMAassociated risks of ranitidine; and the impact of any findings made by the U.S. Food and Drug

Administration, which is investigating this issue. There also are significant overlaps among

defendants in both the personal injury and consumer class actions. Including both types of actions

3

(...continued)

1360 (J.P.M.L. 2011). We therefore decline to grant plaintiffs’ request at this time. Should the

Panel issue an order conditionally transferringKoppell to the MDL, plaintiffs at that time maymove

to vacate the conditional transfer order. See Panel Rule 7.1.

4 The common defendants include: Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.;

GlaxoSmithKline LLC; PfizerInc.; Sanofi-AventisU.S.LLC; Sanofi US Services Inc.; and Chattem,

Inc.

Case 3:19-cv-07226-EMC Document 11 Filed 02/06/20 Page 2 of 5 Case MDL No. 2924 Document 198 Filed 02/06/20 Page 2 of 5
-3-

in the MDL will result in significant efficiencies. See In re Valsartan N-Nitrosodimethylamine

(NDMA) Contamination Prods. Liab. Litig., 363 F. Supp. 3d 1378, 1381-82 (J.P.M.L. 2019).

The Southern District of Florida is an appropriate transferee district for this litigation. A

large number of Zantac actions are pending in the Southern District of Florida, which is supported

by the majority of responding plaintiffs. The district is a relatively convenient and accessible forum,

with the resources and the capacity to efficiently handle what could be a large litigation. 

Additionally, centralization before the Honorable Robin L. Rosenberg allows us to assign this

litigation to an able jurist who has not yet had the opportunity to preside over an MDL. We are

confident that Judge Rosenberg will steer this litigation on an efficient and prudent course. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the actions listed on Schedule A and pending outside

the Southern District of Florida are transferred to the Southern District of Florida and, with the

consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Robin L. Rosenberg for coordinated or consolidated

pretrial proceedings.

 PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

__________________________________________

 Karen K. Caldwell 

 Chair

R. David Proctor Catherine D. Perry

Nathaniel M. Gorton Matthew F. Kennelly

David C. Norton

Case 3:19-cv-07226-EMC Document 11 Filed 02/06/20 Page 3 of 5 Case MDL No. 2924 Document 198 Filed 02/06/20 Page 3 of 5
IN RE: ZANTAC (RANITIDINE)

PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION MDL No. 2924

SCHEDULE A

Eastern District of California

HANSEN v. BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ET AL.,

C.A. No. 2:19-02069

Northern District of California

BALISTRERI v. BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ET AL.,

C.A. No. 3:19-07226

GARZA, ET AL. v. SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S. LLC, ET AL., C.A. No. 5:19-05772

District of Colorado

BLAKE v. BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ET AL.,

C.A. No. 1:19-02991

District of Connecticut

DIMESKY, ET AL. v. SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S. LLC, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:19-01517

CRAVENS, ET AL. v. BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,

ET AL., C.A. No. 3:19-01683

Southern District of Florida

LOPEZ FLORES v. SANOFI US SERVICES INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 0:19-62313

KERZER v. SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S. LLC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:19-24092

GALIMIDI v. SANOFI US SERVICES INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:19-24395

Southern District of Illinois

SOBIESZCZYK v. BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,

ET AL., C.A. No. 3:19-01200

District of New Jersey

SANTORELLA, ET AL. v. SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S. LLC, ET AL.,

C.A. No. 3:19-18146

PINALES v. SANOFI S.A., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:19-19324

CRAVENS, ET AL. v. BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,

ET AL., C.A. No. 3:19-19368

Case 3:19-cv-07226-EMC Document 11 Filed 02/06/20 Page 4 of 5 Case MDL No. 2924 Document 198 Filed 02/06/20 Page 4 of 5
-A2-

Eastern District of New York

DE LUCA v. SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S. LLC, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:19-06160

Southern District of New York

RODRIGUEZ v. SANOFI U.S. LLC, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:19-09527

Case 3:19-cv-07226-EMC Document 11 Filed 02/06/20 Page 5 of 5 Case MDL No. 2924 Document 198 Filed 02/06/20 Page 5 of 5