Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-02324/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-02324-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

IN RE: NATIONAL PRESCRIPTION OPIATE LITIGATION MDL No. 2804

TRANSFER ORDER

Before the Panel: Plaintiffs in 43 actions move under Panel Rule 7.1 to vacate the orders *

conditionally transferring their respective actions listed on Schedule A to MDL No. 2804. Central

District of California plaintiff United Healthcare Services, Inc., also requests establishment of a separate

MDL consisting of claims against Insys Therapeutics, Inc., in the District of Arizona. Various defendants1

oppose the motions. 

After considering the arguments of counsel, we find these actions involve common questions of

fact with the actions previously transferred to MDL No. 2804, 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 forth in our order directing centralization. 

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

actions sharing factual questions regarding the allegedly improper marketing and distribution of various

prescription opiate medications into states, cities, and towns across the country. See In re Nat’l

Prescription Opiate Litig., 290 F. Supp.3d 1375, 1378-79 (J.P.M.L. 2017). 

Despite some variances among the actions before us, they share a factual core with the MDL

actions: the manufacturer and distributor defendants’ alleged knowledge of and conduct regarding the

diversion of these prescription opiates, as well as the manufacturers’ allegedly improper marketing of

such drugs. See id. The actions therefore fall within the MDL’s ambit. 

Judges Ellen Segal Huvelle and Nathaniel M. Gorton did not participate in the decision of this *

matter. 

 Amerisourcebergen Corp. and Amerisourcebergen Drug Corp.; Cardinal Health, Inc., 1

McKesson Corp. (distributor defendants); Allergan PLC, Allergan Finance, LLC; Actavis LLC,

Actavis Pharma, Inc.; Barr Laboratories, Inc.; Cephalon, Inc.; Endo Health Solutions Inc., Endo

Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Insys Therapeutics, Inc.; Janssen Pharmaceutica, Inc.; Janssen

Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Johnson & Johnson; Mallinckrodt plc; Mallinckrodt LLC;

Ortho-McNeil-Jansenn Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc., Par

Pharmaceutical, Inc., Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc.; Purdue Pharma L.P., Purdue Pharma,

Inc., and The Purdue Frederick Company, Inc.; Rhodes Pharmaceuticals; SpecGx LLC; Teva

Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.;. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., and Watson Laboratories, Inc.

(manufacturing defendants).

UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL

on

MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

I hereby certify that this instrument is a true and correct copy of

the original on file in my office. Attest: Sandy Opacich, Clerk

U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio

By: /s/Robert Pitts

Deputy Clerk

Case 3:19-cv-02324-JST Document 24 Filed 08/02/19 Page 1 of 6
 See, e.g., In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. Sales Practices Litig., 170 F. Supp. 2d 1346, 1347-48 2

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

 Where transfer is otherwise appropriate, the Panel transfers actions under Section 1407 even 3

if those actions currently are stayed as the result of bankruptcy proceedings. In re Ephedra Prods.

Liab. Litig., 416 F. Supp. 2d 1358, 1359-60 (J.P.M.L. 2006) (transferring actions subject to

bankruptcy stay). Section 1407 transfer does not affect the operation of the bankruptcy stay. Claims

stayed in the transferor court remain stayed in the transferee court. The Panel is simply indicating

the place where proceedings will occur when the stay is lifted. Any questions concerning the effect

of the stay and any modification thereof are matters to be worked out by the involved courts and the

parties.

-2-

The parties opposing transfer in 42 actions argue principally that federal jurisdiction is lacking

over their cases. But opposition to transfer based on a jurisdictional challenge is insufficient to warrant

vacating conditional transfer orders covering otherwise factually related cases.2

 Several parties also argue

that including their actions in this large MDL will cause them inconvenience. Given the undisputed

factual overlap with the MDL proceedings, transfer is justified in order to facilitate the efficient conduct

of the litigation as a whole. See In re Watson Fentanyl Patch Prods. Liab. Litig., 883 F. Supp. 2d 1350,

1351-52 (J.P.M.L. 2012) (“[W]e look to the overall convenience of the parties and witnesses, not just

those of a single plaintiff or defendant in isolation.”).

Central District of California plaintiff United HealthCare, which brings claims against Insys for

its role in United’s purported wrongful coverage of Subsys prescriptions, opposes transfer on the grounds

that its action, United Healthcare, is unique. United also requests the creation of an Insys-only MDL. 

We deny the motion to vacate and the request to create a new MDL. Insys initiated Chapter 11

proceedings in early June 2019. Creating a new MDL is inadvisable at this time – no litigation is

ongoing at the moment against Insys, pursuant to the automatic stay,3

 and Insys has yet to weigh in on

United’s proposal. Further, the United Healthcare action shares significant factual overlap with many

MDL actions. We recently transferred a third-party payor putative class action (of which United

presumably would be a member), the crux of which was that Insys perpetrated a scheme to defraud thirdparty payors of prescription drugs by, among other things, impersonating physician office staff and

falsifying patient records to induce third-party payors to pay for prescriptions of Subsys. See Transfer

Order at 2, and In re Nat’l Prescription Opiate Litig., MDL No. 2804 (J.P.M.L. June 5, 2019) (ECF No.

4537). Moreover, Insys and its role in the proliferation of Subsys is at issue in hundreds of actions

brought by other MDL plaintiffs.

Case 3:19-cv-02324-JST Document 24 Filed 08/02/19 Page 2 of 6
 PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

 Sarah S. Vance

 Chair

Lewis A. Kaplan R. David Proctor

Catherine D. Perry Karen K. Caldwell

-3-

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the actions listed on Schedule A are transferred to the

Northern District of Ohio and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Dan A. Polster

for inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

Case 3:19-cv-02324-JST Document 24 Filed 08/02/19 Page 3 of 6
IN RE: NATIONAL PRESCRIPTION OPIATE LITIGATION MDL No. 2804

SCHEDULE A 

Central District of California

UNITED HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC. v. INSYS THERAPEUTICS, INC.,

C.A. No. 8:1900545

Northern District of California

COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, CALIFORNIA, ET AL. v. PURDUE PHARMA L.P.,

ET AL., C.A. No. 3:1902307

CITY OF COSTA MESA, ET AL. v. PURDUE PHARMA L.P., ET AL., 

C.A. No. 3:1902320

CITY OF FULLERTON, ET AL. v. PURDUE PHARMA L.P., ET AL., 

C.A. No. 3:1902321

CITY OF IRVINE, ET AL. v. PURDUE PHARMA L.P., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:1902323

CITY OF SANTA ANA, ET AL. v. PURDUE PHARMA L.P., ET AL., 

C.A. No. 3:1902324

CITY OF WESTMINSTER, ET AL. v. PURDUE PHARMA L.P., ET AL., 

C.A. No. 3:1902325

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE, ET AL. v. PURDUE PHARMA L.P., ET AL.,

C.A. No. 3:1902326

District of Maryland

THE CITY OF ANNAPOLIS, MARYLAND v. PURDUE PHARMA L.P., ET AL.,

C.A. No. 1:1901162

District of New Hampshire

STRAFFORD COUNTY v. PURDUE PHARMA L.P., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:1900325

BELKNAP COUNTY v. PURDUE PHARMA L.P., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:1900326

CHESHIRE COUNTY v. PURDUE PHARMA L.P., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:1900328

TOWN OF BELMONT, NH v. PURDUE PHARMA L.P., ET AL., 

C.A. No. 1:1900329

CITY OF CLAREMONT, NH v. PURDUE PHARMA L.P., ET AL., 

C.A. No. 1:1900331

GRAFTON COUNTY v. PURDUE PHARMA L.P., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:1900332

ROCKINGHAM COUNTY v. PURDUE PHARMA L.P., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:1900333

SULLIVAN COUNTY v. PURDUE PHARMA L.P., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:1900334

Eastern District of Oklahoma

PITTSBURG COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS v. PURDUE

PHARMA, LP, ET AL., C.A. No. 6:1900100

Case 3:19-cv-02324-JST Document 24 Filed 08/02/19 Page 4 of 6
- A2 -

Northern District of Oklahoma

CITY OF OWASSO v. PURDUE PHARMA L.P., ET AL., C.A. No. 4:1900171

Western District of Oklahoma

CITY OF YUKON v. PURDUE PHARMA LP, ET AL., C.A. No. 5:1900280

CITY OF MUSTANG v. PURDUE PHARMA LP, ET AL., C.A. No. 5:1900339

CITY OF MIDWEST CITY v. PURDUE PHARMA LP, ET AL., C.A. No. 5:1900345

CITY OF ENID v. PURDUE PHARMA LP, ET AL., C.A. No. 5:1900351

Southern District of Texas

COUNTY OF WALKER v. OPTUMRX, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 4:1901767

Eastern District of Virginia

FAUQUIER COUNTY, VIRGINIA v. MALLINCKRODT LLC, ET AL., 

C.A. No. 1:1900364

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY v. PURDUE PHARMA

L.P., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:1900365

FAIRFAX COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS v. PURDUE PHARMA, L.P., 

ET AL., C.A. No. 1:1900544

CITY OF CHESAPEAKE, VIRGINIA v. ACTAVIS, LLC, ET AL., 

C.A. No. 2:1900183

ACCOMACK COUNTY, VIRGINIA v. PURDUE PHARMA, L.P., ET AL., 

C.A. No. 2:1900184

NORTHUMBERLAND COUNTY, VIRGINIA v. PURDUE PHARMA L.P., ET AL.,

C.A. No. 3:1900246

Western District of Virginia

CITY OF BRISTOL, VIRGINIA v. PURDUE PHARMA L.P., ET AL., 

C.A. No. 1:1900011

LOUISA COUNTY, VIRGINIA v. PURDUE PHARMA L.P., ET AL.,

C.A. No. 3:1900027

MADISON COUNTY, VIRGINIA v. PURDUE PHARMA L.P., ET AL.,

C.A. No. 3:1900028

HALIFAX COUNTY, VIRGINIA v. PURDUE PHARMA, L.P., ET AL.,

C.A. No. 4:1900021

CITY OF LEXINGTON, VIRGINIA v. PURDUE PHARMA L.P., ET AL.,

C.A. No. 6:1900021

ROCKBRIDGE COUNTY, VIRGINIA v. PURDUE PHARMA, L.P., ET AL.,

Case 3:19-cv-02324-JST Document 24 Filed 08/02/19 Page 5 of 6
- A3 -

C.A. No. 6:1900025

ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA v. PURDUE PHARMA L.P., ET AL., 

C.A. No. 7:1900271

CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA v. PURDUE PHARMA L.P., ET AL., 

C.A. No. 7:1900272

CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA v. PURDUE PHARMA L.P., ET AL., 

C.A. No. 7:1900273

ALLEGHANY COUNTY, VIRGINIA v. PURDUE PHARMA L.P., ET AL., 

C.A. No. 7:1900275

FRANKLIN COUNTY, VIRGINIA v. PURDUE PHARMA L.P., ET AL., 

C.A. No. 7:1900302

FLOYD COUNTY, VIRGINIA v. PURDUE PHARMA L.P., ET AL., 

C.A. No. 7:1900371

CITY OF COVINGTON, VIRGINIA v. PURDUE PHARMA L.P., ET AL.,

C.A. No. 7:1900372

Case 3:19-cv-02324-JST Document 24 Filed 08/02/19 Page 6 of 6