UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL

on 

MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

IN RE: LIPITOR (ATORVASTATIN CALCIUM) 

MARKETING, SALESPRACTICES AND PRODUCTS 

LIABILITY LITIGATION (NO. II) MDL No. 2502

TRANSFER ORDER

Before the Panel: Pursuant to Panel Rule 7.1, plaintiffs in three actions move to vacate our *

orders conditionally transferring the actions to the District of South Carolina for inclusion in MDL

No. 2502. Defendant Pfizer Inc. opposes the motions. The actions, which are listed on the attached 1

Schedule A, are pending in the Central District of California (one action), the Eastern District of

California (one action), and the Northern District of California (one action).

In their motions to vacate, plaintiffs principally argue that the actions were improperly

removed from California state court. As we frequently have held, however, the pendency of

jurisdictional objections is not, as a general matter, a sufficient reason to delay or deny transfer. 

Under Panel Rule 2.1(d), the pendency of a conditional transfer order does not 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 the Panel finalizes transfer of the action to the MDL, a court wishing to rule upon

that motion generally has adequate time to do so.

We addressed plaintiffs’ other arguments in our recent order denying motions to vacate filed

by plaintiffs in 81 other California actions, which, like these three actions, were removed on both

Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) “mass action” grounds and diversity grounds. See Transfer Order

(J.P.M.L. June 6, 2014) (ECF No. 443). In particular, we rejected the suggestion that where an

action has been removed on mass action and other grounds, we should assess the reasonableness of

those other grounds. See id. at 1. We held that we lacked such authority. Id. (citing In re Ivy, 901

F.2d 7, 9 (2d Cir. 1990)). In addition, we rejected the suggestion that we reconsider our precedent

holding that CAFA’s prohibition on transfer, under 28 U.S.C. § 1407, of an action removed on mass

action grounds, absent a request by a majority of the plaintiffs therein, does not constitute an 2

impediment to transfer where other grounds for federal jurisdiction also are asserted. See id. at 2

(reaffirming In re: Darvocet, Darvon & Propoxyphene Prods. Liab. Litig., 939 F. Supp. 2d 1376,

1381 (J.P.M.L. 2013)).

 Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle took no part in the decision of this matter. *

 McKesson Corporation filed a joinder in Pfizer’s opposition as to the Eastern District of 1

California and Northern District of California actions.

 See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(11)(C)(i). 2

Case MDL No. 2502 Document 484 Filed 08/12/14 Page 1 of 3

2:14-mn-02502-RMG Date Filed 08/12/14 Entry Number 400 Page 1 of 3

A TRUE COPY

ATTEST: ROBIN L. BLUME, CLERK 

BY: 

DEPUTY CLERK

Case 3:14-cv-01488-EMC Document 38 Filed 08/12/14 Page 1 of 3
 - 2 -

After considering all argument of counsel, we find that these actions involve common

questions of fact with actions previously transferred to MDL No. 2502, and that transfer 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 original order directing

centralization. In that order, we held that the District of South Carolina was an appropriate Section

1407 forum for actions “shar[ing] factual issues arising from common allegations that taking Lipitor

can cause women to develop type 2 diabetes.” See In re: Lipitor (Atorvastatin Calcium) Mktg., Sales

Practices & Prods. Liab. Litig., — F. Supp. 2d —, 2014 WL 661589, at *2 (J.P.M.L. Feb. 18,

2014). Plaintiffs do not dispute that their actions share multiple factual issues with those already in

the MDL.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, these actions are

transferred to the District of South Carolina, and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the

Honorable Richard M. Gergel for inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. 

PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

 

 John G. Heyburn II

 Chairman

Marjorie O. Rendell Charles R. Breyer 

Lewis A. Kaplan Sarah S. Vance

R. David Proctor

Case MDL No. 2502 Document 484 Filed 08/12/14 Page 2 of 3

2:14-mn-02502-RMG Date Filed 08/12/14 Entry Number 400 Page 2 of 3

Case 3:14-cv-01488-EMC Document 38 Filed 08/12/14 Page 2 of 3
IN RE: LIPITOR (ATORVASTATIN CALCIUM) 

MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS 

LIABILITY LITIGATION (NO. II) MDL No. 2502

SCHEDULE A

Central District of California

WILLIAMS, ET AL. v. PFIZER, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:14-03477

Eastern District of California

WEAVER v. PFIZER, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:14-00818

Northern District of California

STARK v. PFIZER, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:14-01488

Case MDL No. 2502 Document 484 Filed 08/12/14 Page 3 of 3

2:14-mn-02502-RMG Date Filed 08/12/14 Entry Number 400 Page 3 of 3

Case 3:14-cv-01488-EMC Document 38 Filed 08/12/14 Page 3 of 3