Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-01251/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-01251-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 367
Nature of Suit: TORTS - Personal Injury - Health Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury/Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Product Liability

---

UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL

on

MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

IN RE: TAXOTERE (DOCETAXEL)

PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION MDL No. 2740

TRANSFER ORDER

Before the Panel: Plaintiffs in the Eastern District of Louisiana Veronica Smith and District

of Colorado Gahan actions, listed on Schedule A, move under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to centralize pretrial

proceedings in this litigation in the Eastern District of Louisiana or, alternatively, the Southern

District of Illinois. This litigation consists of thirty-three actions pending in sixteen districts, as

listed on Schedule A. The Panel also has been notified of fifty-six related actions pending in twentyfive districts.1

All parties agree that centralization is warranted, but disagree as to the most appropriate

transferee district. Plaintiffs in ten actions and potential tag-along actions have responded to the

motion, and they variously argue in support of centralization in the Eastern District of Louisiana, the

Southern District of Illinois, the District of Minnesota, the Northern District of Illinois, the Southern

District of Mississippi, or the Northern District of California. Responding defendant Sanofi-Aventis

U.S. LLC (Sanofi-Aventis) suggests centralization in the District of Colorado or the District of New

Jersey or, alternatively, supports centralization in the Eastern District of Louisiana, the District of

Minnesota, or the Northern District of Illinois.

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

common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Eastern District of Louisiana will serve the

convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. 

All the actions share common factual questions arising out of allegations that Taxotere (docetaxel),

a chemotherapy drug, causes permanent hair loss, that defendants were aware of this possible side

effect and failed to warn patients, and that defendants marketed Taxotere as more effective than other

chemotherapy drugs when other drugs were equally effective without the associated permanent hair

loss. Plaintiffs in these actions each allege that they experienced permanent hair loss as a result of

using Taxotere. All actions will require discovery regarding the design, testing, manufacturing,

marketing, and labeling of Taxotere. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent

inconsistent pretrial rulings; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the

judiciary. 

These and any other related actions are potential tag-along actions. See Panel Rules 1.1(h), 1

7.1, and 7.2.

Case MDL No. 2740 Document 81 Filed 10/04/16 Page 1 of 4

Oct 06 2016

Case 4:16-cv-01251-PJH Document 27 Filed 10/06/16 Page 1 of 4
-2-

Given the geographic dispersal of the pending actions and the widespread nature of this

litigation, no particular district or region emerges as a clear focal point. We are persuaded that the

Eastern District of Louisiana is an appropriate transferee forum. Plaintiffs in six actions and

potential tag-along actions and responding defendant support centralization in this district, in the first

instance or in the alternative, and ten actions and potential tag-along actions already are pending

there. The Eastern District of Louisiana is an easily accessible and reasonably central district. 

Additionally, Judge Lance M. Africk is a seasoned jurist who is willing and able to handle this

litigation, but who has not yet had the opportunity to preside over an MDL. 

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

the Eastern District of Louisiana are transferred to the Eastern District of Louisiana and, with the

consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Lance M. Africk for 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 4:16-cv-01251-PJH Document 27 Filed 10/06/16 Page 2 of 4 Case MDL No. 2740 Document 81 Filed 10/04/16 Page 2 of 4
IN RE: TAXOTERE (DOCETAXEL)

PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION MDL No. 2740

SCHEDULE A

Central District of California

COLLINS v. SANOFI S.A., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:16-05418

Northern District of California

DODSON v. SANOFI S.A., ET AL., C.A. No. 4:16-01251

District of Colorado

GAHAN v. SANOFI S.A., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:15-02777

LEITH v. SANOFI S.A., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:16-00741

Northern District of Illinois

SPANN v. SANOFI S.A., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:16-03038

PISTONE v. SANOFI S.A., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:16-04028

TRAYLOR v. SANOFI S.A., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:16-05651

JOHNSON v. SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S. LLC, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:16-06754

WYSOCKI v. SANOFI S.A., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:16-07059

Southern District of Illinois

CHASE v. SANOFI S.A., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:16-00588

DALTON v. SANOFI S.A., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:16-00718

KOONTZ v. SANOFI S.A., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:16-00805

District of Kansas

DETRIXHE v. SANOFI S.A., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:16-02250

Eastern District of Louisiana

BEMISS v. SANOFI S.A., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:16-06425

SMITH v. SANOFI S.A., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:16-07794

WEBB v. SANOFI S.A., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:16-10763

WALTER v. SANOFI S.A., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:16-12706

SMITH v. SANOFI S.A., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:16-12943

Case MDL No. 2740 Document 81 Filed 10/04/16 Page 3 of 4

16-cv-15281 N(5)

16-cv-15282 N(5)

16-cv-15283 N(5)

16-cv-15286 N(5)

16-cv-15291 N(5)

16-cv-15294 N(5)

16-cv-15295 N(5)

16-cv-15296 N(5)

16-cv-15297 N(5)

16-cv-15307 N(5)

16-cv-15308 N(5)

16-cv-15310 N(5)

16-cv-15313 N(5)

Case 4:16-cv-01251-PJH Document 27 Filed 10/06/16 Page 3 of 4
-A2-

MDL No. 2740 Schedule A (Continued)

Middle District of Louisiana

BURNEY v. SANOFI S.A., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:16-00388

District of Minnesota

TOUCHI-PETERS v. SANOFI S.A., ET AL., C.A. No. 0:16-02464

Southern District of Mississippi

JONES v. SANOFI S.A., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:16-00288

CARPENTER v. SANOFI S.A., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:16-00289

CHASE v. SANOFI S.A., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:16-00404

TOLEFREE v. SANOFI S.A., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:16-00412

GRINES v. SANOFI S.A., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:16-00488

Western District of North Carolina

MOTTOLA v. SANOFI S.A., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:16-00255

WOOD v. SANOFI S.A., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:16-00261

Northern District of Ohio

CARSON v. SANOFI S.A., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:16-00165

District of South Carolina

MEYERS v. SANOFI SA, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:16-02536

CLINKSCALES v. SANOFI SA, ET AL., C.A. No. 6:16-02376

Eastern District of Tennessee

ADAMS v. SANOFI-AVENTIS, S.A., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:16-00365

Northern District of Texas

FREE v. SANOFI S.A., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:16-00074

Western District of Texas

GORNIAK v. SANOFI S.A., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:16-00637

Case MDL No. 2740 Document 81 Filed 10/04/16 Page 4 of 4

16-cv-15280 N(5)

16-cv-15314 N(5)

16-cv-15315 N(5)

16-cv-15316 N(5)

16-cv-15317 N(5)

16-cv-15318 N(5)

16-cv-15319 N(5)

16-cv-15320 N(5)

16-cv-15321 N(5)

16-cv-15322 N(5)

16-cv-15323 N(5)

16-cv-15324 N(5)

16-cv-15325 N(5)

16-cv-15326 N(5)

16-cv-15327 N(5)

Case 4:16-cv-01251-PJH Document 27 Filed 10/06/16 Page 4 of 4