UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL

on 

MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

IN RE: LIPITOR (ATORVASTATIN CALCIUM) 

MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS 

LIABILITY LITIGATION (NO. II) MDL No. 2502

TRANSFER ORDER

Before the Panel: Pursuant to Panel Rule 7.1, plaintiffs in 81 actions move to vacate our

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

No. 2502. Defendants Pfizer Inc. and McKesson Corporation oppose the motions. The actions,

which are listed on the attached Schedule A, are pending in the Central District of California (76

actions), the Eastern District of California (one action), and the Northern District of California (four

actions).

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.

These actions all were removed on Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) “mass action”

grounds, as well as diversity grounds. CAFA prohibits 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. We 1

have held, however, that this prohibition is not an impediment to transfer where other grounds for

federal jurisdiction also are asserted. See In re: Darvocet, Darvon & Propoxyphene Prods. Liab.

Litig., 939 F. Supp. 2d 1376, 1381 (J.P.M.L. 2013). Plaintiffs suggest, however, that in such a

situation (i.e., one in which an action has been removed on CAFA mass action and other grounds),

we should assess the reasonableness of those other grounds. We lack such authority, and thus reject

this suggestion. See In re Ivy, 901 F.2d 7, 9 (2d Cir. 1990) (“Section 1407 does not empower the

MDL Panel to decide . . . issues relating to a motion to remand”).

Plaintiffs also suggest that we revisit our April 2013 Darvocet decision, questioning whether

it was correctly decided. They argue that Congress must have intended to preclude Section 1407

transfer of any action removed on CAFA mass action grounds because (1) it excluded from the

definition of a removable “mass action” state court cases in which the claims are “consolidated or

 See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(11)(C)(i). 1

Case MDL No. 2502 Document 443 Filed 06/06/14 Page 1 of 6

2:14-mn-02502-RMG Date Filed 06/06/14 Entry Number 185 Page 1 of 6

A TRUE COPY

ATTEST: ROBIN L. BLUME, CLERK 

BY: 

DEPUTY CLERK

Case 3:14-cv-01196-EMC Document 22 Filed 06/10/14 Page 1 of 6
 - 2 -

coordinated solely for pretrial proceedings” ; (2) Section 1407(a) authorizes the Panel to transfer 2

related federal actions only for “coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings” ; and (3) CAFA 3

prohibits Section 1407 transfer of an action removed on CAFA mass action grounds, absent a request

by a majority of the plaintiffs. We have reviewed our decision in Darvocet and believe that it

represents the most reasonable interpretation of the involved statutes. Under CAFA, a state court

action “in which the claims have been consolidated or coordinated solely for pretrial proceedings”

is not a mass action to begin with. The fact that this exclusionary language is similar, but not

identical, to the “coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings” language in Section 1407(a) is

not persuasive.

Moreover, plaintiffs’ arguments do not undermine our basic reasoning in Darvocet. As we

explained in that decision, nothing in CAFA or its legislative history suggests that Congress

“intended the mass action provision to render a case that otherwise would have been within the

Panel’s purview – e.g., a case removed on diversity or federal question grounds – not transferrable

merely because the defendant has cited the mass action provision as an additional ground in its notice

of removal.” See 939 F. Supp. 2d at 1380. Indeed, reading the provision in such a manner “would

effect a partial repeal of the authority conferred by Section 1407 without any clear indication of

legislative intent to do so.” Id. 

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.

 See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(11)(B)(ii)(IV). 2

 See 28 U.S.C. § 1407(a). 3

Case MDL No. 2502 Document 443 Filed 06/06/14 Page 2 of 6

2:14-mn-02502-RMG Date Filed 06/06/14 Entry Number 185 Page 2 of 6

Case 3:14-cv-01196-EMC Document 22 Filed 06/10/14 Page 2 of 6
 - 3 -

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

Ellen Segal Huvelle R. David Proctor

Case MDL No. 2502 Document 443 Filed 06/06/14 Page 3 of 6

2:14-mn-02502-RMG Date Filed 06/06/14 Entry Number 185 Page 3 of 6

Case 3:14-cv-01196-EMC Document 22 Filed 06/10/14 Page 3 of 6
IN RE: LIPITOR (ATORVASTATIN CALCIUM) MARKETING, SALES

PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION (NO. II) MDL No. 2502

SCHEDULE A

Central District of California

PAMELA MCKENZIE, ET AL. v. PFIZER, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:14-01800

HETTIE BRADLEY, ET AL. v. PFIZER, INC., C.A. No. 2:14-01803

JUANA GARCIA, ET AL. v. PFIZER, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:14-01804

BERNADETTE FERNANDEZ, ET AL. v. PFIZER, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:14-01806

SEGALILT SIEGEL, ET AL. v. PFIZER, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:14-01807

BONNIE KESSNER, ET AL. v. PFIZER, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:14-01811

DEBERAH RIVINGTON, ET AL. v. PFIZER, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:14-01814

PHYLLIS BEIMA, ET AL. v. PFIZER, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:14-01815

NINA OBUCH, ET AL. v. PFIZER, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:14-01816

ALIDA ADAMYAN, ET AL. v. PFIZER, INC., C.A. No. 2:14-01818

MARIA CARBAJAL, ET AL. v. PFIZER, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:14-01819

DOROTHY M. ANDRES, ET AL. v. PFIZER, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:14-01820

DONNA KRUENEGEL, ET AL. v. PFIZER, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:14-01822

MATTIE KING, ET AL. v. PFIZER, INC., C.A. No. 2:14-01823

MARY STANTON, ET AL. v. PFIZER, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:14-01827

ROSE A. WILLIAMS, ET AL. v. PFIZER, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:14-01828

VICKY AVILA, ET AL. v. PFIZER, INC., C.A. No. 2:14-01829

MAIZY BENONS, ET AL. v. PFIZER, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:14-01831

LINDA ROY, ET AL. v. PFIZER, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:14-01832

BRENDA JOHNSON, ET AL. v. PFIZER, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:14-01836

BLANCA MEJIA, ET AL. v. PFIZER, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:14-01837

LORI ANN WEISMAN, ET AL. v. PFIZER, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:14-01841

SYLVIA ALVARDO v. PFIZER, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:14-01843

LENA WHITAKER, ET AL. v. PFIZER, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:14-01844

MARTHA BOWSER v. PFIZER, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:14-01846

PATRICIA LEWIS, ET AL. v. PFIZER, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:14-01848

EMMA FRIELDS, ET AL. v. PFIZER, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:14-01850

FIETTE WILLIAMS, ET AL. v. PFIZER, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:14-01853

PALLAVI MEHTA, ET AL. v. PFIZER, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:14-01854

THERESA MEDINA, ET AL. v. PFIZER, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:14-01857

DEBORAH MCCLAIN, ET AL. v. PFIZER, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:14-01858

VALERIE DAVIS v. PFIZER, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:14-01860

TONISHA POWELL, ET AL. v. PFIZER, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:14-01861

ZURITA GRAY, ET AL. v. PFIZER, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:14-01862

CLARA BAGDASARIAN, ET AL. v. PFIZER, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:14-01863

CLARA OWENS v. PFIZER, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:14-01865

Case MDL No. 2502 Document 443 Filed 06/06/14 Page 4 of 6

2:14-mn-02502-RMG Date Filed 06/06/14 Entry Number 185 Page 4 of 6

Case 3:14-cv-01196-EMC Document 22 Filed 06/10/14 Page 4 of 6
 - A2 -

MDL No. 2502 Schedule A (Continued)

Central District of California (continued)

DELORIS ANN RICHARD, ET AL. v. PFIZER, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:14-01866

MAZAL AZZAM, ET AL. v. PFIZER, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:14-01867

IMELDA DIAZ, ET AL. v. PFIZER, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:14-01869

SHAHLA OWHADY, ET AL. v. PFIZER, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:14-01872

OUIDA VALENTINE, ET AL. v. PFIZER, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:14-01874

LORETTA CURLEY, ET AL. v. PFIZER, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:14-01876

REGINA FEBERDINO, ET AL. v. PFIZER, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:14-01889

RUTH ENGLISH, ET AL. v. PFIZER, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:14-01892

CHERI LUBENKO v. PFIZER, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:14-01894

JESSIE HILL, ET AL. v. PFIZER, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:14-01895

DORIS CHOATE, ET AL. v. PFIZER, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:14-01896

SUSAN KELLEY, ET AL. v. PFIZER, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:14-01897

CHARLENE TATE, ET AL. v. PFIZER, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:14-01898

MARY ADAMIAN, ET AL. v. PFIZER, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:14-01899

CANDACY ROBERTS-ANDERSON, ET AL. v. PFIZER, INC., ET AL., 

C.A. No. 2:14-01904

LOUISE HARRIS, ET AL. v. PFIZER, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:14-01906

SHIRLEY REYNOLDS, ET AL. v. PFIZER, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:14-01907

JUANITA BANKS, ET AL. v. PFIZER, INC., C.A. No. 2:14-01908

RUBY HARE, ET AL. v. PFIZER, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:14-01910

MARION CONSTANT v. PFIZER, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:14-01911

JANICE S. ROBINSON, ET AL. v. PFIZER, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:14-01912

JOY ZULLO, ET AL. v. PFIZER, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:14-01914

DONNA WILLIS v. PFIZER, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:14-01916

FRANKIE BROWN, ET AL. v. PFIZER, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:14-01921

JOCELYN CLEMENTE SALVO, ET AL. v. PFIZER, INC., ET AL., 

C.A. No. 2:14-01924

GLADYS ANDERSON, ET AL. v. PFIZER, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:14-01925

DARLENE JORDAN, ET AL. v. PFIZER, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:14-01928

DEANN PIERCE v. PFIZER, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:14-01929

DENELLE BAILEY, ET AL. v. PFIZER, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:14-01930

EDITH WAKABAYASHI v. PFIZER, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:14-01931

MAYE ALBERSTONE, ET AL. v. PFIZER, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:14-01932

ROSE HODGES v. PFIZER, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:14-01936

MARILYN WILLIAMS, ET AL. v. PFIZER, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:14-01937

LINDA FRANZONE, ET AL. v. PFIZER, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:14-01940

JOYCE LUBNIEWSKI v. PFIZER, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:14-01942

TOMIE ISREL, ET AL. v. PFIZER, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:14-01943

ELIZABETH ANN WATTS, ET AL. v. PFIZER, INC., ET AL., 

C.A. No. 2:14-01997

Case MDL No. 2502 Document 443 Filed 06/06/14 Page 5 of 6

2:14-mn-02502-RMG Date Filed 06/06/14 Entry Number 185 Page 5 of 6

Case 3:14-cv-01196-EMC Document 22 Filed 06/10/14 Page 5 of 6
 - A3 -

MDL No. 2502 Schedule A (Continued)

Central District of California (continued)

MONICA NEWMAN, ET AL. v. PFIZER, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:14-02041

ALMA RICHARDS v. PFIZER, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 5:14-00485

SHARON PARKER, ET AL. v. PFIZER, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 5:14-00496

Eastern District of California

ALANIS, ET AL. v. PFIZER, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:14-00365

Northern District of California

LITTLE, ET AL. v. PFIZER, INC., C.A. No. 3:14-01177

ROUDA v. PFIZER, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:14-01195

PETERS v. PFIZER, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:14-01196

KATHLEEN DAVIS v. PFIZER, INC., C.A. No. 3:14-01204

Case MDL No. 2502 Document 443 Filed 06/06/14 Page 6 of 6

2:14-mn-02502-RMG Date Filed 06/06/14 Entry Number 185 Page 6 of 6

Case 3:14-cv-01196-EMC Document 22 Filed 06/10/14 Page 6 of 6