#### IN RE: AMERICAN MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC., PELVIC REPAIR SYSTEM PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION In re: Boston Scientific Corp. Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation In re: Ethicon, Inc., Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation.

MDL Nos. 2325, 2326, 2327.

United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.

Feb. 7, 2012.

Before JOHN G. HEYBURN II, Chairman, KATHRYN H. VRATIL, BARBARA S. JONES, PAUL J. BARBADORO, MARJORIE O. RENDELL, and CHARLES R. BREYER, Judges of the Panel.

TRANSFER ORDER

JOHN G. HEYBURN II, Chairman.

Before the Panel:* Before the Panel are three dockets involving allegations of defects in various models of pelvic surgical mesh products manufactured by three groups of manufacturers.1 Plaintiffs in almost twenty actions before the Panel have moved pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, to centralize all MDL No. 2325, MDL No. 2326, and MDL No. 2327 actions in the Southern District of West Virginia. In MDL No. 2325, defendant AMS has moved to centralize the MDL No. 2325 actions in the District of Minnesota or, alternatively, if the Panel deems centralization of three MDLs to be appropriate, suggests the *1360Southern District of West Virginia as transferee district. This litigation currently consists of approximately 150 actions spread across the country,2 as listed on the attached schedules. The Panel has been notified of numerous additional potentially related actions.3

Plaintiffs in over 100 actions and potentially related actions support centralization of all actions in the Southern District of West Virginia. Responding plaintiffs, alternatively or in the first instance, also have suggested other transferee districts for one or more of these MDLs, including the Eastern District of Louisiana, the Western District of Louisiana, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and the Northern District of California. Plaintiff in the District of New Jersey *Bienstock*action opposes centralization, and plaintiffs in the District of Nevada *Erwin*action request the Panel defer transferring their case until their motion for remand to state court is decided, but concede that if remand is denied, transfer is appropriate. Defendant Boston Scientific suggests centralization of the MDL No. 2326 actions in the Western District of Oklahoma or, if the Panel deems centralization of three MDLs in one district to be appropriate, supports the Southern District of West Virginia as transferee district. Defendant Ethicon suggests centralization of only the MDL No. 2327 actions in the District of New Jersey or, alternatively, the Northern District of Georgia.

Almost all parties agree that centralization of each of these separate MDLs is appropriate. The actions in each MDL share factual issues arising from allegations of defects in pelvic surgical mesh products manufactured by AMS, Boston Scientific, and Ethicon, respectively. Centralization therefore will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel and the judiciary. Moreover, centralization of each litigation is consistent with our decisions in *In re Mentor Corp. ObTape Transobturator Sling Products Liability Litigation,*MDL No. 2004, 588 F.Supp.2d 1374 (J.P.M.L.2008); and *In re Avaulta Pelvic Support Systems Products Liability Litigation,*MDL No. 2187, 746 F.Supp.2d 1362 (J.P.M.L.2010).

The central dispute among the parties is where each MDL should proceed. Most plaintiffs argue in favor of three MDLs proceeding in one district; namely, the Southern District of West Virginia. Defendants prefer centralization of each litigation in separate districts. We are persuaded that the Southern District of West Virginia is the most appropriate transferee forum for each of these MDLs. Chief Judge Joseph R. Goodwin of that district is currently presiding over MDL No. 2187, which involves claims of defects in similar pelvic surgical mesh products, and is uniquely situated to preside over the similar claims in these three MDLs. The pelvic surgical mesh products at issue in MDL Nos. 2325, 2326, and 2327 are used to treat similar conditions as those at issue in MDL No. 2187, and they have allegedly resulted in similar injuries. Almost all responding plaintiffs support centralization in this district, and defendants AMS and Boston Scientific concede that the Southern District of West Virginia is *1361an appropriate transferee district. Finally, a number of these actions are brought by plaintiffs who were implanted with multiple products made by multiple manufacturers. Centralization of the three MDLs in one court will allow for coordination of any overlapping issues of fact in such multi-product, multi-defendant actions.4

We will not delay transfer of the District of Nevada *Erwin*action. Plaintiffs can present their motion for remand to state court to the transferee court. *See, e.g., In re Ivy,*901 F.2d 7 (2nd Cir.1990); *In re Prudential Insurance Company of America Sales Practices Litigation,*170 F.Supp.2d 1346, 1347-48 (J.P.M.L.2001). We similarly decline to exclude the District of New Jersey *Bienstock*action from MDL No. 2327, as it shares questions of fact with the actions in that MDL and does not appear to be so far advanced that it would not benefit from centralized proceedings.

We decline to include three of the actions listed on the MDL No. 2325 motion in centralized proceedings, as listed on Schedule B. After the motions to centralize were filed, plaintiffs in the District of Minnesota *Flight*action amended their complaint to bring claims only against an unrelated manufacturer. AMS is no longer named in this action and, therefore, it appears that it does not belong in MDL No. 2325. Additionally, the Southern District of West Virginia *Culbertson*action that was included in the initial motion for centralization in MDL No. 2325 is currently a part of MDL No. 2187, as it involves claims against C.R. Bard, Inc. (Bard). In transferring the claims against Bard in October 2011, the Panel separated and remanded claims against AMS to the District of South Carolina. The claims involving AMS, therefore, are still pending in the District of South Carolina, not in the Southern District of West Virginia. We have determined, however, that it is beneficial in this litigation for a particular action involving claims against multiple manufacturers to remain whole and proceed as one action. Therefore, the Panel will place the remaining claims in the District of South Carolina *Culbertson*action on a conditional transfer order for MDL No. 2187 in due course. Finally, the Western District of Louisiana *Waldroup*action, which names Boston Scientific as its first defendant, is included in the MDL No. 2325 motion for centralization but not on the MDL No. 2326 motion for centralization. As we have determined to transfer such multi-product, multi-defendant actions to the MDL involving the first named defendant, the Panel will not transfer this action with the present order, but will instead place the action on a conditional transfer order in MDL No. 2326.

On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held we find that the actions contained in each MDL involve common questions of fact, and that centralization of each of MDL No. 2325, 2326 and 2327 in the Southern District of West Virginia will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motions for centralization of MDL No. 2325, MDL No. 2326, and MDL No. 2327 in the Southern District of West Virginia are granted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, the actions listed on Schedule A, encompassing MDL No. 2325 actions involving AMS, are transferred to the Southern District of West Virginia and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Joseph *1362R. Goodwin for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that transfer under Section 1407 of the three actions listed on Schedule B is denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, the actions listed on Schedule C, encompassing MDL No. 2826 actions involving Boston Scientific, are transferred to the Southern District of West Virginia and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Joseph R. Goodwin for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, the actions listed on Schedule D, encompassing MDL No. 2327 actions involving Ethicon, are transferred to the Southern District of West Virginia and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Joseph R. Goodwin for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

SCHEDULE A

MDL No. 2325 — IN RE: AMERICAN MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC., PELVIC REPAIR SYSTEM PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION

*Northern District of Alabama*

*Shannon Farr, et al. v. American Medical Systems, Inc., et al.,*C.A. No. 5:11-02767

*District of Arizona*

*Kaylin Oldfather v. American Medical Systems, Inc.,*C.A. No. 2:11-02022

*Central District of California*

*Jill Engledow v. Mentor Corporation, et al,*C.A. No. 2:11-07391

*Susan Galbreath, et al. v. Steve Seung Yü Koh, M.D.,*et al., C.A. No. 2:11-08387

*Northern District of California*

*Ellen Ambroff, et al. v. American Medical Systems, Inc.,*C.A. No. 3:08-04289

*Shellie Hill, et al. v. American Medical Systems, Inc.,*C.A. No. 3:11-04610

*Judy Anna Winegardner, et al. v. American Medical Systems, Inc.,*C.A. No. 3:11-04611

*Iona Metcalf, et al. v. American Medical Systems, Inc.,*C.A. No. 3:11-04612

*Jenelle Hoover, et al. v. American Medical Systems, Inc.,*C.A. No. 3:11-04614

*Kathleen Nichols-Gould, et al. v. American Medical Systems, Inc.,*C.A. No. 3:11-04616

*Vicki Gray v. American Medical Systems, Inc.,*C.A. No. 3:11-04668

*Kathleen Schmidt, et al. v. American Medical Systems, Inc.,*C.A. No. 3:11— 04670

*Francine Baia, et al. v. American Medical Systems, Inc.,*C.A. No. 3:11-04671

*Summer Abrego v. American Medical Systems, Inc.,*C.A. No. 3:11-04672

*Carole Chenoweth v. American Medical Systems, Inc.,*C.A. No. 3:11-05145

*-Patricia Hendricksen v. American Medical Systems, Inc.,*C.A. No. 3:11-05146

*Sherry Maloney v. American Medical Systems, Inc.,*C.A. No. 3:11-05312

*Lisa Roddy, et al. v. American Medical Systems, Inc.,*C.A. No. 4:11-03970

*Michelle Arsenault v. American Medical Systems, Inc.,*C.A. No. 4:11-04343

*Susan Petkovich, et al. v. American Medical Systems, Inc.,*C.A. No. 4:11— 04613

*Letitia Greene-Newton, et al. v. American Medical Systems, Inc.*C.A. No. 4:11-04615

*Veda Lester v. American Medical Systems, Inc.,*C.A. No. 4:11-04669

*April Stevens v. American Medical Systems, Inc.,*C.A. No. 4:11-05143

*1363*Joette Boone, et al. v. American Medical Systems, Inc.,*et al., C.A. No. 4:11-05144

*Cindy Wyatt, et al. v. American Medical Systems, Inc.,*C.A. No. 4:11-05147

*Jan Glisson, et al. v. American Medical Systems, Inc.,*C.A. No. 5:11-04945

*Ramona Foley, et al. v. American Medical Systems, Inc.,*C.A. No. 5:11-05014

*District of Delaware*

*Cathy Hoppe v. American Medical Systems, Inc., et al,*C.A. No. 1:11-01012

*District of District of Columbia*

*Deborah Bedford v. American Medical Systems, Inc.,*C.A. No. 1:11-01472

*Northern District of Florida*

*Carolyn Finlay v. American Medical Systems, Inc.,*C.A. No. 3:11-00507

*Northern District of Georgia*

*Kimberly Williams v. American Medical Systems, Inc., et al.,*C.A. No. 1:11— 02782

*Cynthia Daniel, et al. v. American Medical Systems, Inc.,*C.A. No. 1:11-03261

*Holly Johnson, et al. v. American Medical Systems, Inc.,*C.A. No. 1:11-03925

*Patricia Ledford, et al. v. American Medical Systems, Inc.,*C.A. No. 1:11— 03926

*Lynn Pope, et al. v. American Medical Systems, Inc.,*C.A. No. 1:11-03928

*Laurie Schultz v. American Medical Systems, Inc.,*C.A. No. 1:11-03929

*Sonya Waren, et al. v. American Medical Systems, Inc.,*C.A. No. 2:11-00310

*Tammy Powell, et al. v. American Medical Systems, Inc.,*C.A. No. 3:11-00159

*Maritza Reneau, et al. v. American Medical Systems, Inc.,*C.A. No. 3:11— 00180

*Western District of Louisiana*

*Patsy J. Brandao, et al. v. American Medical Systems Holdings Inc., et al.,*C.A. No. 5:11-01767

*JoAnn B. Pickard v. American Medical Systems Inc., et al.,*C.A. No. 5:11-01845

*District of Maryland*

*Robin Dahl v. American Medical Systems, Inc.,*C.A. No. 1:11-02925

*District of Minnesota*

*Amy Wells, et al. v. American Medical Systems, Inc.,*C.A. No. 0:11-02141

*Bobbie Feam, et al. v. American Medical Systems, Inc.,*C.A. No. 0:11-02502

*JoAnn Hill v. American Medical Systems, Inc.,*C.A. No. 0:11-02589

*District of Nevada*

*Carol S. Austirtr-Fink v. American Medical Systems, Inc.,*C.A. No. 2:09-01981

*Connie Erwin, et al. v. American Medical Systems, Inc.,*et al., C.A. No. 2:11-01475

*Debra Grumbles v. American Medical Systems, Inc.,*C.A. No. 2:11-01582

*Middle District of North Carolina*

*Tamara Tucker, et al. v. American Medical Systems, Inc., et al,*C.A. No. 1:11-00974

*Western District of Oklahoma*

*Lisa Berry v. American Medical Systems, Inc., et al.,*C.A. No. 5:11-00748

*Tina Gordon v. American Medical Systems Holdings Inc., et al,*C.A. No. 5:11-01259

*Jennifer Gaines, et al. v. American Medical Systems, Inc.,*C.A. No. 5:11— 01299

*Eastern District of Pennsylvania*

*Paulette Lewis v. American Medical Systems, Inc.,*C.A. No. 2:11-05445

*1364*Kathleen Craig, et al. v. American Medical Systems, Inc.,*C.A. No. 2:11-05462

*Linda Osman, et al. v. American Medical Systems, Inc.,*C.A. No. 2:11-05465

*Helga White v. American Medical Systems, Inc., et al,*C.A. No. 2:11-05520

*Jennifer Heiser v. Endo Pharmaceuticals,*C.A. No. 2:11-06651

*Maggie McEwan, et al. v. Endo Pharmaceuticals,*C.A. No. 2:11-06652

*Kathleen Kenton, et al. v. Endo Pharmaceuticals,*C.A. No. 2:11-06653

*Bemella Meche v. Endo Pharmaceuticals,*C.A. No. 2:11-06654

*Holli Allen, et al. v. Endo Pharmaceuticals,*C.A. No. 2:11-06655

*Mary Howard, et al. v. Endo Pharmaceuticals,*C.A. No. 2:11-06656

*Joann Cosma, et al. v. Endo Pharmaceuticals,*C.A. No. 2:11-06657

*Evelyn Bonilla, et al. v. Endo Pharmaceuticals,*C.A. No. 2:11-06658

*Jane Mixon, et al. v. Endo Pharmaceuticals,*C.A. No. 2:11-06659

*Helen Reaves v. Endo Pharmaceuticals,*C.A. No. 2:11-06660

*Mary Smith, et al. v. Endo Pharmaceuticals,*C.A. No. 2:11-06661

*Joann Fosbenner, et al. v. Endo Pharmaceuticals,*C.A. No. 2:11-06662

*Marie Quigley, et al. v. Endo Pharmaceuticals,*C.A. No. 2:11-06663

*April Perdue, et al. v. Endo Pharmaceuticals,*C.A. No. 2:11-06664

*Valinda Aumiller v. Endo Pharmaceuticals, et al,*C.A. No. 2:11-06804

*Gina Kolar v. Endo Pharmaceuticals, et al.,*C.A. No. 2:11-06805

*Candace Lyons v. Endo Pharmaceuticals, et al.,*C.A. No. 2:11-06806

*Gearal Moneypenny, et al. v. Endo Pharmaceuticals, et al.,*C.A. No. 2:11-06807

*Susan Cox v. Endo Pharmaceuticals, et al,*C.A. No. 2:11-06808

*Katherine Simmons v. Endo Pharmaceuticals, et al,*C.A. No. 2:11-06809

*Kaci Mitchell v. Endo Pharmaceuticals,*C.A. No. 2:11-07131

*Joycebeth Stoutamire v. Endo Pharmaceuticals,*C.A. No. 2:11-07134

*Gidget Crossett v. Endo Pharmaceuticals,*C.A. No. 2:11-07135

*Western District of Texas*

*Sandra Colon v. American Medical Systems, Inc.,*C.A. No. 1:11-00872

*District of Utah*

*Jeanne Kramer, et al. v. American Medical Systems, Inc.,*C.A. No. 2:11-01004

*Western District of Washington*

*Diane Horton, et al. v. American Medical Systems, Inc., et al,*C.A. No. 3:11-05780

*Southern District of West Virginia*

*Jessica Swaim, et al. v. American Medical Systems, Inc., et al,*C.A. No. 2:11-00827

*Virginia Johnson, et al. v. American Medical Systems, Inc.,*C.A. No. 2:11-00933

SCHEDULE B

ACTIONS FOR WHICH TRANSFER IS DENIED

*Western District of Louisiana*

*Bette G. Waldroup, et al. v. Boston Scientific Corp., et al,*C.A. No. 3:11-01854

*District of Minnesota*

*Marsha Flight, et al. v. American Medical Systems, Inc., et al.,*C.A. No. 0:11-01761 *1365*Southern District of West Virginia*

*Fronde Culbertson, et al. v. C.R. Bard, Inc., et al,*C.A. No. 2:11-00796

SCHEDULE C

MDL No. 2326 — IN RE: BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORP. PELVIC REPAIR SYSTEMS PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION

*Middle District of Alabama*

*Kimberly Barber, et al. v. Boston Scientific Corp.,*C.A. No. 2:11-00952

*Northern District of Alabama*

*Anna Buchanan, et al. v. Boston Scientific Corp.,*C.A. No. 2:11-03946

*Mary Nalley, et al. v. Boston Scientific Corp.,*C.A. No. 4:11-03521

*Ava Kirkpatrick v. Boston Scientific Corp.,*C.A. No. 5:11-03759

*District of Arizona*

*Catherine A. Avent v. Boston Scientific Corp.,*C.A. No. 2:11-02280

*Central District of California*

*Sherry Herkal v. Boston Scientific Corp., et al,*C.A. No. 2:11-08678

*Northern District of California*

*Michelle Spence, et al. v. Boston Scientific Corp.,*C.A. No. 3:11-04961

*Southern District of Florida*

*Marta Iglesias, et al. v. Boston Scientific Corp.,*C.A. No. 1:11-24263

*Northern District of Georgia*

*Tami Goodson v. Boston Scientific Corp.,*C.A. No. 1:11-03023

*Geraldine Bailey, et al. v. Boston Scientific Corp.,*C.A. No. 1:11-03981

*Nicole Preston, et al. v. Boston Scientific Corp.,*C.A. No. 1:11-03982

*Western District of Louisiana*

*Minnie V. Mann v. Boston Scientific Corp.,*C.A. No. 3:11-01785

*Anita M. Jolly, et al. v. Boston Scientific Corp.,*C.A. No. 3:11-01871

*Amanda Powell, et al. v. Boston Scientific Corp.,*C.A. No. 3:11-01876

*Nancy K. Williams v. Boston Scientific Corp., et al,*C.A. No. 3:11-01938

*Karen S. Weller v. Boston Scientific Corp.,*C.A. No. 5:11-01696

*■Western District of North Carolina*

*Patsy Meadows, et al. v. Boston Scientific Corp., C.A.*No. 5:11-00143

*Western District of Oklahoma*

*Terre Hammonds v. Boston Scientific, Inc.,*C.A. No. 5:11-00663

*District of South Carolina*

*Donna Beatty, et al. v. Boston Scientific Corp.,*C.A. No. 2:11-03147

*Lisa Daniels v. Boston Scientific Corp.,*C.A. No. 3:11-02849

*Middle District of Tennessee*

*Tammy L. Kennamore v. Boston Scientific Corp.,*C.A. No. 3:11-01064

*Western District of Texas*

*Leona Webb, et al. v. Boston Scientific Corp.,*C.A. No. 1:11-00873

*Southern District of West Virginia*

*Brenda Moyer, et al. v. Boston Scientific Corp.,*C.A. No. 2:11-00810

SCHEDULE D

MDL No. 2327 — IN RE: ETHICON, INC., PELVIC REPAIR SYSTEMS PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION

*Northern District of Florida*

*Barbara Dykes v. Ethicon, Inc., et al.,*C.A. No. 3:11-00564

*Southern District of Florida*

*Susan Thaman, et al. v. Ethicon, Inc.,*C.A. No. 2:11-14390

*Middle District of Georgia*

*Amy Holland, et al. v. Johnson & Johnson, et al,*C.A. No. 3:11-00135

*1366*Came Smith v. Ethicon, Inc., et al.,*C.A. No. 5:11-00467

*Northern District of Georgia*

*Iris Geraldine Carr, et al. v. Ethicon, Inc., et al,*C.A. No. 1:11-02217

*Cathy Warlick, et al. v. Ethicon, Inc., et al,*C.A. No. 1:11-02758

*Doris Jackson v. Johnson & Johnson, et al,*C.A. No. 1:11-03903

*Guillan Garnett, et al. v. Johnson & Johnson, et al,*C.A. No. 1:11-03904

*Kathy Barton v. Gynecare, Inc., et al,*C.A. No. 3:11-00176

*Southern District of Georgia*

*Mary Luellen Kilday, et al. v. Johnson & Johnson, et al,*C.A. No. 4:11-00286

*Janice Swaney v. Johnson & Johnson, et al,*C.A. No. 4:11-00287

*Mary F. Cone v. Ethicon, Inc., et al.,*C.A. No. 5:11-00110

*District of Kansas*

*Joy Essman, et al. v. Ethicon, Inc., et al,*C.A. No. 2:11-02595

*Eastern District of Louisiana*

*Linda B. Ryan v. Johnson & Johnson, Inc., et al,*C.A. No. 2:11-02751

*Western District of Louisiana*

*Teri Key Shively, et al. v. Johnson & Johnson, et al,*C.A. No. 3:11-00362

*Teme S. Gregory, et al. v. Johnson & Johnson Inc., et al,*C.A. No. 3:11-01768

*Tina Morrow, et al. v. Johnson & Johnson Inc., et al,*C.A. No. 3:11-01866

*Susan C. Hayes, et al. v. Johnson & Johnson Inc., et al,*C.A. No. 3:11-01897

*Charlene Logan Taylor v. Johnson & Johnson Inc., et al,*C.A. No. 5:11-01894

*Shirley Carroll, et al. v. Johnson & Johnson Inc., et al,*C.A. No. 5:11-01937

*Southern District of Mississippi*

*Polly Middlebrook v. Ethicon, Inc.,*C.A. No. 4:11-00169

*Western District of Missouri*

*Sandra L. Woolfe v. Ethicon, Inc., et al,*C.A. No. 4:11-01040

*District of New Jersey*

*Caryn Bienstock v. Ethicon, Inc., et al,*C.A. No. 3:11-04080

*Northern District of New York*

*Kathleen Wolfe v. Ethicon, Inc.,*C.A. No. 6:11-00180

*Northern District of Ohio*

*Judy White, et al. v. Ethicon, Inc., et al,*C.A. No. 1:11-01562

*Joann Heather, et al. v. Ethicon, Inc., et al,*C.A. No. 5:11-02012

*Southern District of Ohio*

*Sharon Boggs, et al. v. Ethicon, Inc.,*C.A. No. 1:11-00516

*Eastern District of Pennsylvania*

*Joanna Jacobson v. Ethicon, Inc.,*C.A. No. 2:11-05591

*Rose Gomez, et al. v. Ethicon, Inc.,*C.A. No. 2:11-05625

*Amanda Deleon, et al. v. Ethicon, Inc.,*C.A. No. 5:11-05538

*Western District of Pennsylvania*

*Deborah A. Smith v. Ethicon, Inc.,*C.A. No. 1:11-00279

*District of South Carolina*

*Charlotte Hargrove v. Johnson & Johnson, et al,*C.A. No. 2:11-03242

*Eastern District of Tennessee*

*Helen Brown, et al. v. Johnson & Johnson, et al,*C.A. No. 3:11-00483 *1367*District of Utah*

*Carol Dimock v. Ethicon, Inc., et al,*C.A. No. 2:11-01048

*Western District of Washington*

*Dawna Hankins v. Ethicon, Inc.,*C.A. No. 2:11-01635

*Southern District of West Virginia*

*Wilma Johnson v. Ethicon, Inc.,*C.A. No. 2:11-00809

*Eastern District of Wisconsin*

*Deborah Lozano, et al. v. Ethicon, Inc.,*C.A. No. 2:11-00836

*

 Judge W. Royal Furgeson, Jr. took no part in the decision of this matter.

1

. American Medical Systems, Inc. and related entities (AMS); Boston Scientific Corp. (Boston Scientific); and Ethicon, Inc., Johnson & Johnson, and related entities (Ethicon).

2

. Two additional actions were included in the MDL No. 2325 motion, and a third action was included in the motions to centralize MDL Nos. 2325 and 2327, but they have each been remanded to state court or voluntarily dismissed. An additional unrelated action inadvertently was included in the MDL No. 2327 Section 1407 motion, but movants have withdrawn that action from consideration on the motion.

3

. These actions and any other related actions are potential tag-along actions. *See*Rules 1.1(h), 7.1, and 7.2.

4

. The Panel has determined in consultation with the transferee judge to transfer actions involving multiple manufacturer defendants to the MDL involving the first named defendant in that action.