Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-02314/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-02314-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 355
Nature of Suit: Motor Vehicle Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Petition for Removal

---

UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL

on

MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

IN RE: DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS, INC., PINNACLE HIP

IMPLANT PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION MDL No. 2244

TRANSFER ORDER

Before the Panel: Plaintiffs in the two actions listed on the attached Schedule A move under

Panel Rule 7.1 to vacate the Panel’s order conditionally transferring their respective actions to MDL No.

2244. Defendants DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., DePuy Synthes, Inc., and Johnson & Johnson Services,

Inc., oppose the motions. 

After considering the argument of counsel, we find that both actions involve 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. Moreover, transfer 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 arising from 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). Both actions involve injuries related to

DePuy Pinnacle Acetabular Cup System hip implants and fall within the MDL’s ambit.

Plaintiffs in the Central District of California Timms action do not dispute that their action shares

questions of fact concerning Pinnacle hip implants with actions pending in MDL No. 2244. Plaintiff

instead bases her arguments against transfer primarily on the pendency of her motion to remand the

action to state court and her preference for having the Central District of California rule on the motion

to remand. These arguments are unconvincing. Plaintiff can present her renewed motion for remand

to the transferee judge. See, e.g., In re: Ivy, 901 F.2d 7, 9 (2nd Cir. 1990); In re: Prudential Ins. Co. 1

of Am. Sales Practices Litig., 170 F.Supp.2d 1346, 1347-48 (J.P.M.L. 2001). 

In the Northern District of California Mugnolo action, plaintiff allegedly received a Pinnacle hip

implant in a ceramic-on-polyethylene configuration and suffered a dislocation of her hip implant when

a ring locking device broke. Plaintiffs assert that claims regarding this configuration and this specific

mechanism of failure are not present in the MDL. Since the creation of MDL No. 2244, however, the

 Panel Rule 2.1(d) expressly provides that the pendency of a conditional transfer order does not 1

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. Here, the transferor

judge denied plaintiff’s motion to remand without prejudice to renewal on September 4, 2015.

Case MDL No. 2244 Document 1627 Filed 10/13/15 Page 1 of 3

CERTIFIED A TRUE COPY

KAREN MITCHELL, CLERK

ERTIFIED A TRUE COP

AREN MITCHELL, CLER

By s/*THOMAS DREW

DEPUTY CLERK

U.S. DISTRICT COURT, NORTHERN

DISTRICT OF TEXAS

October 13, 2015

Case 3:11-md-02244-K Document 566 Filed 10/13/15 Page 1 of 3 PageID 10366 Case 4:15-cv-02314-JSW Document 20 Filed 10/13/15 Page 1 of 3
-2-

Panel has transferred actions involving all configurations of Pinnacle hip implants. Even if the

mechanism of failure of plaintiff’s Pinnacle hip implant is somewhat different, transfer is appropriate

to prevent any overlap in discovery in the MDL and Mugnolo related to, inter alia, the development,

approval, manufacture, marketing and performance of the Pinnacle hip device, particularly with respect

to the Mugnolo plaintiff’s breach of warranty and negligence claims. 

We are persuaded that both actions will benefit from the framework provided by the centralized

proceedings for discovery and motion practice. As the litigation progresses, however, if the transferee

judge determines that a given claim or action will no longer benefit from inclusion in MDL No. 2244,

we encourage him to promptly suggest that the Panel remand that action or claim to the transferor court. 

See Panel Rule 10.1(b); In re: ClassicStar Mare Lease Litig., 528 F. Supp. 2d 1345, 1347 (J.P.M.L.

2007). 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that these actions are 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.

 PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

 

 Sarah S. Vance

 Chair

Marjorie O. Rendell Charles R. Breyer

Lewis A. Kaplan Ellen Segal Huvelle

R. David Proctor Catherine D. Perry

Case 3:11-md-02244-K Document 566 Filed 10/13/15 Page 2 of 3 PageID 10367 Case 4:15-cv-02314-JSW Document 20 Filed 10/13/15 Page 2 of 3 Case MDL No. 2244 Document 1627 Filed 10/13/15 Page 2 of 3
IN RE: DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS, INC., PINNACLE HIP

IMPLANT PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION MDL No. 2244

SCHEDULE A 

Central District of California

 TIMMS, ET AL. v. DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:1505253

Northern District of California

MUGNOLO v. DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 4:1502314

Case 3:11-md-02244-K Document 566 Filed 10/13/15 Page 3 of 3 PageID 10368 Case 4:15-cv-02314-JSW Document 20 Filed 10/13/15 Page 3 of 3 Case MDL No. 2244 Document 1627 Filed 10/13/15 Page 3 of 3