#### In re RICHARDSON-MERRELL, INC. “BENDECTIN” PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION (NO. II).

No. 486.

Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.

April 11, 1985.

See also, D.C., 588 P.Supp. 1448, 6th Cir., 727 F.2d 608.

*716Before ANDREW A. CAFFREY,* Chairman, and ROBERT H. SCHNACKE, FRED DAUGHERTY, SAM C. POINTER, Jr.,* S. HUGH DILLIN, MILTON POLLACK,* and LOUIS H. POLLAK, Judges of the Panel.

Judges Andrew A. Caffrey and Milton Pollack recused themselves and took no part in the decision of this matter. In addition, Judge Sam C. Pointer, Jr. took no part in the decision of this matter.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Presently before the Panel are motions, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407(a) and Rule ll(c)(i), R.P.J.P.M.L., 89 F.R.D. 273, 280 (1981), by plaintiffs in the 83 actions listed on the following Schedule A and in the six actions listed on the following Schedule B, to remand those actions from the Southern District of Ohio to their respective transfer- or courts. Defendant Merrell-Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Merrell) initially opposed the motions, but counsel for Merrell stated at oral argument in this matter that Merrell no longer opposes remand, although Merrell takes the position that Judge Carl B. Rubin, the transferee judge in this litigation, should make certain rulings prior to remand.

On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing held, the Panel finds that remand of the 83 actions on Schedule A is appropriate at this time. Plaintiffs in these 83 actions did not elect to opt into the consolidated causation trial conducted in the Southern District of Ohio by Judge Rubin. On March 12, 1985, the jury in the consolidated causation trial returned a verdict in favor of Merrell. In the wake of the verdict, Judge Rubin has now advised the Panel that he believes that he has completed his task under Section 1407 as transferee judge in this litigation. He has therefore suggested that remand is now appropriate for all actions transferred under Section 1407 in which plaintiffs did not elect to opt into the consolidated causation trial. In conjunction with Judge Rubin’s suggestion, the transferee court has provided the Panel with a list of 305 actions (including the 83 actions on Schedule A) that meet the above-stated criteria for remand. In considering remand of actions, the Panel is greatly influenced by the transferee judge’s suggestion that remand is appropriate. *In re Evergreen Valley Project Litigation,*435 F.Supp. 923, 924 (J.P.M.L.1977). We adopt Judge Rubin’s suggestion and order remand of these 83 actions.1

The six actions on Schedule B do not appear on the transferee court’s list of actions that meet the criteria for remand. Accordingly, in the absence of a suggestion of remand directed to any of these six actions, remand of those actions is not appropriate at this time.2

Also before the Panel are motions, pursuant to Rule 9, *supra,*89 F.R.D. at 278-79, brought by plaintiffs in the six actions listed on the following Schedule C, to vacate the conditional transfer orders entered by the Panel in those six actions.

On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing held, the Panel finds that transfer of these actions at this time would not serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses or promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. Although *717we recognize that these actions share questions of fact with actions previously transferred in this litigation, we are not persuaded that transfer under Section 1407 remains appropriate for newly filed actions in this docket, in light of Judge Rubin’s view that he has completed his task as transferee judge and that all pending Bendectin actions not included in the consolidated causation trial should now proceed in their courts of origin rather than in the transferee court.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the 83 actions listed on the following Schedule A be, and the same hereby are, REMANDED from the Southern District of Ohio to their respective transferor courts.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that remand of the six actions listed on the following Schedule B be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Panel’s orders conditionally transferring the six actions listed on the following Schedule C be, and the same hereby are, VACATED.

SCHEDULE A

Southern District of Ohio

*Daniel D. Doe, et al. v. Merrell-National Laboratories,*C.A. No. 82-234 (E.D.Mich., 80-72902)

*LaVerne M. Burzynski, et al. v. Merrell-National Laboratories,*C.A. No. 82-237 (E.D.Mich., 81-10021)

*Brian Wolfe v. Merrell-National Laboratories,*C.A. No. 82-238 (E.D.Mich., 81-70192)

*Richard O. Schaum, et al. v. Merrell-National Laboratories,*C.A. No. 82-493 (E.D.Mich., 82-70354)

*Christie Lee Tattersall, et al. v. Merrell-National Laboratories,*C.A. No. 82-530 (E.D.Mich., 83-71125)

*Jeffrey Oatten, et al. v. Merrell-National Laboratories,*C.A. No. 82-632 (E.D.Mich., 82-10142)

*Roger Slone, etc. v. Merrell-National Laboratories,*C.A. No. 82-695 (E.D.Mich., 82-71840)

*Alan W. Tackaberry, et al. v. Merrell-National Laboratories,*C.A. No. 82-863 (E.D.Mich., 82-30058)

*John Aulgur, et al. v. Merrell-Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,*C.A. No. 82-1315 (E.D.Mich., 82-73583)

*Riola J. Billops, et al. v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,*C.A. No. 83-208 (E.D.Mich., 82-74570)

*Lynn Marie Trombley, et al. v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,*C.A. No. 83-615 (E.D.Mich., 83-0652)

*Cathy Jean Snyder, et al. v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,*C.A. No. 83-1088 (E.D.Mich., 83-CV-7140)

*Belinda Janes, et al. v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,*C.A. No. 83-1329 (E.D.Mich., 83-CV-2376DT)

*Dawn M. Schultz, etc. v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,*C.A. No. 83-1909 (W.D.Mich., G83-1075CA6)

*Pamela Timlick v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,*C.A. No. 84-0146 (E.D.Mich., 83-CV-5109DT)

*Penny Breed, et al. v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,*C.A. No. 84-0152 (E.D.Mich., 83-CV-8673FL)

*Deborah McFarlin, et al. v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,*C.A. No. 84-0155 (E.D.Mich., 83-CV-5405DT)

*Bessie James, et al. v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,*C.A. No. 84-0156 (E.D.Mich., 83-CV-5503DT)

*Marion Meade, et al. v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,*C.A. No. 84-0157 (E.D.Mich., 83-CV-7424BC)

*Cheryl Siman, et al. v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,*C.A. No. 84-0158 (E.D.Mich., 83-CV-5406DT)

*Barberine Ruth, et al. v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,*C.A. No. 84-0223 (E.D.Mich., 83-CV-6502AA)

*Gary B. Perkins, et al. v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,*C.A. No. 84-0377 (E.D.Mich., 84-CV-0301DT)

*Paul Karr, et al. v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,*C.A. No. 84-583 (E.D.Mich., 84-CV-0676DT)

*718
      *Debra Ann Karbousky, et al. v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,*C.A. No. 84-1243 (E.D.Mich., 84-CV-1183DT)

*Shirley Barker, etc. v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,*C.A. No. 84-1254 (C.D.Ill., 84-3163)

*Lori C. Malak, et al. v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,*C.A. No. 84-1382 (E.D.Mich., 84-CV-2179DT)

*Roland K. Johnson, et al. v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,*C.A. No. 84-1659 (E.D.La., 84-2044-M(2))

*Randy Accardo, et al. ¶. Richardson-Merrell, Inc.,*C.A. No. 84-1658 (E.D.La., 84-2045-K(2))

*Kathy Bordick, et al. v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc.,*C.A. No. 84-1657 (W.D.Pa., CA84-183-ERIE)

*Mary L. Newton, Sr., et al. v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc.,*C.A. No. 84-1656 (W.D.Pa., CA84-1522)

*Lawrence Longmore, et al. v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.,*C.A. No. 84-1655 (D. Idaho, CIV-84-4071)

*Veronica Taylor, etc. v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,*C.A. No. 84-1650 (D.D.C., 84-1168)

*Edward C. Kelley, et al. v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc.,*C.A. No. 84-1647 (D.Md., R84-1229)

*David Will, et al. v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc.,*C.A. No. 84-1648 (S.D.Ga., CV-484-118)

*Ronnie Lee, et al. v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc.,*C.A. No. 84-1649 (W.D.Tenn., 84-2228GB)

*George R. Hoffman, et al. v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc.,*C.A. No. 84-1646 (D.Md., R-84-1159)

*Randal P. Guidry, et al. v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc.,*C.A. No. 84-1645 (W.D.La., 84-1122 Sec. L)

*Timothy J. Comeau, et al. v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc.,*C.A. No. 84-1661 (D.Mass., 84-963-N)

*Thomas S. Girardi, et al. v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc.,*C.A. No. 84-1660 (D.Mass., 84-962-N)

*Sekou Ealy, et al. v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc.,*C.A. No. 84-1102 (D.D.C., 83- 3504)

*Stephanie Ann Johnson, et al. v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc.,*C.A. No. 84-1101 (D.Md., B83-3814)

*Donald Raynor, Jr., et al. v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc.,*C.A. No. 84-1103 (D.D.C., 83-3506)

*Jennifer Branda, et al. v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc.,*C.A. No. 82-251 (E.D. Pa., 81-2605)

*Tatanisha Carolina, etc. v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc.,*C.A. No. 82-707 (D.N.J., 82-105)

*Dennis J. Cogan, et al. v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc.,*C.A. No. 82-255 (E.D.Pa., 81-2538)

*Nikki Lyn Curcio, etc. v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc.,*C.A. No. 85-0355 (E.D.Pa., 84-1414)

*Ryan Hayes, et al. v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc.,*C.A. No. 82-254 (E.D.Pa., 81- 3772)

*Mitchell Heskel v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc.,*C.A. No. 84-1105 (E.D.Pa., 83-5366)

*Joseph Keller, etc. v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc.,*C.A. No. 84-1652 (E.D.Pa., 84- 1662)

*Anthony Lanzilotti, et al. v. Merrell-National Laboratories, Inc.,*C.A. No. 82- 460 (E.D.Pa., 82-0183)

*Genevieve Lodise v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc.,*C.A. No. 82-633 (E.D.Pa., 82-1730)

*Carita Richardson, et al. v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc.,*C.A. No. 84-1104 (D.D.C., 83-3505)

*Donald R. Hagen, et al. v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc.,*C.A. No. 84-1380 (N.D.Ill., 84-C-2628)

*Gary Turpin, et al. v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,*C.A. No. 84-1249 (E.D.Kentucky, 84-105)

*John Guiso, et al. v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc.,*C.A. No. 84-525 (D.Minn., 3-84-127)

*Lori Mangels, et al. v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc.,*C.A. No. 83-1939 (D.Md., R-83-3272)

*719
      *Linda W. Porter, et al. v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,*C.A. No. 84-0442 (E.D.La., 84-638)

*Debra A. Arbrough v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,*C.A. No. 84-0365 (E.D.La., 84-146)

*Janice Swearingen v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,*C.A. No. 84-0444 (S.D.Miss., G84-0051W)

*Jonathan Minima v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc.,*C.A. No. 84-1654 (E.D.Pa., 84-2103)

*David M. Orcutt v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc.,*C.A. No. 84-1651 (E.D.Pa., 84-1022)

*Jeremy Joseph Ortolona v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc.,*C.A. No. 85-0354 (E.D.Pa., 84-2730)

*Teresa Peterson v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc.,*C.A. No. 82-378 (E.D.Pa., 81-4063)

*Leonard Pospiech v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc.,*C.A. No. 82-1051 (E.D.Pa., 82-3626)

*Michael Rantz v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc.,*C.A. No. 85-0356 (E.D.Pa., 84-2897)

*Ryan Michael Rosen v. RichardsonMerrell, Inc.,*C.A. No. 82-458 (E.D.Pa., 82-0513)

*Cristopher J. Yarger v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,*C.A. No. 84-1653 (E.D.Pa., 84-1289)

*Megan Mahan v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc.,*C.A. No. 82-252 (E.D.Pa., 81-0885)

*Luigi Amedeo Bommino, Jr., et al. v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al,*C.A. No. 83-1900 (C.D.Cal., 83-6216 CBM (JRx)

*John Davis, et al. v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al,*C.A. No. 83-1663 (C.D.Cal., 83-5139 MRP(Kx)

*Linda Agner, et al. v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc.,*C.A. No. 84-0140 (D.Hawaii, CA 83-0623)

*Edward Bruffey, et al. v. RichardsonMerrell, Inc.,*C.A. No. 84-0141 (D.Hawaii, CA 83-1083)

*Linda Kim, et al. v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc.,*C.A. No. 84-0143 (D.Hawaii, CA 83-1085)

*Gail Levy, et al. v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc.,*C.A. No. 84-0144 (D.Hawaii, 83-1086)

*Stanley Sakuma, et al. v. RichardsonMerrell, Inc.,*C.A. No. 84-0142 (D.Hawaii, 83-1084)

*Lynn Annette Hill, et al. v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals,*C.A. No. 83-493 (W.D.Wash., C83-74T)

*Tawana Herring v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals,*C.A. No. 83-494 (D.D.C., C83-399)

*Tommy Martin v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,*C.A. No. 85-0357 (E.D.Cal., CIVS-84-1110MLS)

*Cynthia Diane Pringle v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,*C.A. No. 85-0358 (E.D.Cal., CIVS-84-1223LKK)

*Terrance Wood, et al. v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,*C.A. No. 82-750 (W.D.Wash., C82-665C)

*Paul Ingle, et al. v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,*C.A. No. 84-1474 (N.D.Tex., CA-4-84-361 K)

*Elizabeth Ann Davis, et al. v. Merrell-National Laboratories, et al.,*C.A. No. 82-859 (D.Ariz., CIV82-1062-PHX-EHC)

*Michelle Rose Mullett, et al. v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,*C.A. No. 84-1566 (C.D.Ill., 84-3347)

SCHEDULE B

Southern District of Ohio

*Brenda B. Babin, et al. v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,*C.A. No. 82-456 (E.D.La., 81-5039)

*Carmen Gonzales Gomez, et al. v. Merrell National Laboratories, et al.,*C.A. No. 82-242 (E.D.La., 81-2022)

*Jesse Nariskus v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc.,*C.A. No. 82-253 (E.D.Pa., 81-3575)

*Duane Lamont Martineau, et al. v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.,*C.A. No. 83-1522 (D.Ariz., CIV83-844-PHX-CAM

*720
      *Lane D. Hallows, et al. v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.,*C.A. No. 83-205 (D.Ariz., CIV82-1091-PHX-EHC)

*Howard Alexander, et al. v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.,*C.A. No. 83-1521 (D.Ariz., CIV831371-PHX-EHC)

SCHEDULE C

District of Colorado

*Cara Marie Pleau, et al. v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,*C.A. No. 84Z2425

Eastern District of Pennsylvania

*Michael O’Brien, et al. v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc., et al.,*C.A. No. 84-3630 (LB)

*Ronald Snowden, et al. v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc.,*C.A. No. 84-4269

Northern District of Illinois

*Michelle Le Parte, et al. v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc.,*C.A. No. 84-C-9944

Southern District of Florida

*Kai C. Winding, etc. v. Merrell Dow Laboratory,*C.A. No. 84-2776-Civ

Northern District of Texas

*Wilfred Bourg, et al. v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceutical, Inc.,*C.A. No. CA4-84-469-E

. The remaining actions included on the transferee court's list will be processed by the Panel by means of conditional remand orders, pursuant to Rule 11(f), *supra,*89 F.R.D. at 281-82.

. In the event that the transferee court amends its list to include any of these six actions or any other actions not presently on the list, the Panel will process these actions in the manner described in note 1, *id.*