IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 


FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 


IN RE: DIET DRUGS (PHENTERMINE/ ) 

FENFLURAMINE/DEXFENFLURAMINE) ) MDL NO. 1203 

PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION ) 

----------------------------------)) 

THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: ) 

) 

GEOFFREY DREW, M.D., et al. ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

AMERICAN HOME PRODUCTS, INC. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 00-21044 

----------------------------------) 

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF SEPARATE PRETRIAL ORDER NO. 889 

Bartle, J. March ~O, 2012 

Before the court is the motion of plaintiffs for 

suggestion of remand to the United States District Court for the 

Southern District of California. 

Plaintiffs are physicians who operated weight-loss 

clinics or other facilities where they prescribed the diet drugs 

fenfluramine, dexfenfluramine, and phentermine to their patients. 

According to the complaint, Wyeth1 engaged in a fraudulent scheme 

to conceal the risks associated with these drugs and to 

aggressively market the drugs to healthcare providers. 

Plaintiffs allegedly suffered "severe economic and personal 

damages centered on the sudden disintegration of their business 

1. Prior to March 11, 2002, Wyeth was known as American Home 

Products Corporation. 

Case 2:00-cv-21044-HB Document 28 Filed 03/30/12 Page 1 of 3
investment" when the diet drugs were withdrawn from the market in 

September, 1997 and they had to close their clinics as a result. 

This action was transferred to this court pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1407(a) by order of the Judicial Panel on 

Multidistrict Litigation as related to In re Diet Drugs Products 

Liabilit::l Litigation (No. 12-1203) (IIMDL"). That statute 

provides: 

When civil actions involving one or more 

common questions of fact are pending in 

different districts, such actions may be 

transferred to any district for coordinated 

or consolidated pretrial proceedings. Such 

transfers shall be made by the judicial panel 

on multidistrict litigation authorized by 

this section upon its determination that 

transfers for such proceedings will be for 

the convenience of parties and witnesses and 

will promote the just and efficient conduct 

of such actions. 

28 U.S.C. § 1407(a). To be coordinated or consolidated, cases 

need not present identical facts but merely must involve 

"overlapping issues. II In re Patenaude, 210 F.3d 135, 144 (3d 

cir. 2000). Transfer is appropriate where it will "avoid 

duplicative discovery, prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings and 

conserve judicial resources." In re Air Disaster at Denver, 486 

F. Supp. 241, 243 (J.P.M.L. 1980). 

Virtually all of the cases in this MDL involve claims 

brought by persons who suffered physical injury or on behalf of 

those who suffered death from ingestion of these diet drugs. 

Nonetheless, sever~l issues in this action overlap with these 

-2­

Case 2:00-cv-21044-HB Document 28 Filed 03/30/12 Page 2 of 3
other MDL cases, including Wyeth's knowledge of the adverse 

health effects associated with diet drugs and how Wyeth marketed 

the drugs. Wyeth has already produced more than five million 

documents in this MDL which deal with its marketing materials, 

clinical studiesl financial data, and other information relevant

to plaintiffs' claims. Plaintiffs' assertion that this action 

involves "unsettled" and "difficultll questions of state law which 

render coordinated pretrial proceedings inappropriate is 

unpersuasive. 

Accordingly, the motion of plaintiffs for suggestion of 

remand to the United States District Court for the Southern 

District of California will be denied. 

-3­

Case 2:00-cv-21044-HB Document 28 Filed 03/30/12 Page 3 of 3