In Re Seroquel Products Liability Litigation

TRANSFER ORDER WM. TERRELL HODGES, Chairman. This litigation currently consists of 92 actions pending in the Northern District of California, seventeen actions in the Southern District of Illinois, two actions in the Western District of Louisiana, and one action each in the Western District of Missouri, District of New Jersey, and Eastern District of Texas, as listed on the attached Schedules A, B and C. 1 Before the Panel are two motions, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, that taken together seek centralization for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings of 114 actions. 2 Plaintiff *1378 in one Southern District of Illinois action moves the Panel for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings in the Southern District of Illinois. Plaintiffs in the two Western District of Louisiana actions move the Panel for centralization under Section 1407 in the Western District of Louisiana. Also, in the event the Panel grants the motions for transfer, defendants Janssen, L.P., and its parent company Johnson & Johnson (collectively Jans-sen) and Eli Lilly and Co. (Lilly) ask the Panel to separate and simultaneously remand the claims against these defendants to their respective transferor courts at the time of transfer. Plaintiffs in the District of New Jersey action oppose any separation and remand of the claims in their action. Defendants AstraZeneca LP and As-traZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP (AstraZ-eneca) oppose the motions for transfer. If the Panel grants the motions over their objections, then these defendants request that the Panel assign the litigation to an experienced jurist with strong case management skills and to a district that has the resources to handle a large caseload and that is convenient to cross-country transportation. AstraZeneca suggests the Middle District of Florida and the Northern District of Illinois as districts that meet this criteria. Should the Panel grant the motions for transfer, AstraZeneca also supports separation and remand under Section 1407 of the claims against the other pharmaceutical defendants. On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, the Panel finds that the actions in this litigation listed on Schedules A and B involve common questions of fact, and that their centralization under Section 1407 in the Middle District of Florida will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. These actions are brought by persons allegedly injured by AstraZeneca’s Seroquel, an atypical antipsychotic medication that allegedly can cause diabetes and related disorders. Common factual questions for the actions in this docket concern, inter alia, i) the development, testing, manufacturing and marketing of Seroquel, and ii) the defendants’ knowledge concerning the drug’s possible adverse effects. Centralization under Section 1407 is necessary in order to eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel and the judiciary. The Panel is persuaded, however, that claims involving prescription drugs other than Seroquel do not share sufficient questions of fact with claims relating to Seroquel to warrant inclusion of the former claims in MDL-1769 proceedings. Much of AstraZeneca’s objection to centralization is rooted in the concern that the creation of multidistrict proceedings pursuant to Section 1407 encourages the filing of numerous actions with little or no merit. AstraZeneca argues, among other things, that the pending actions are in a limited number of federal districts, which are capable of managing Seroquel litigation without multidistrict proceedings. AstraZene-ca points to earlier actions in federal court involving Seroquel, which were dismissed prior to the completion of pretrial proceedings. These arguments are not persuasive. If the Panel were to adopt the defendants’ concept ... many of the judges assigned to the various actions would be required to needlessly replicate other judges’ work on such matters as ... rulings on motions to dismiss, and so forth.... We conclude that such an approach would defeat the very purposes leading to the enactment of Section 1407. *1379 In re Propulsid Products Liability Litigation, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11651, MDL-1355, at *3-4 (J.P.M.L. Aug. 7, 2000). The response to such concerns more properly inheres in assigning all related actions to one judge committed to disposing of spurious claims quickly. The Panel further finds that centralization of the actions listed on Schedule C would neither serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses nor further the just and efficient conduct of this litigation at this time. Plaintiffs in these actions have dismissed their claims against As-traZeneca, leaving claims brought solely against other pharmaceutical companies relating to prescription medications other than Seroquel. The remaining claims do not share sufficient questions of fact with the claims against AstraZeneca in the other actions to warrant inclusion in the MDL-1769 proceedings. We are persuaded that the Middle District of Florida is an appropriate transferee forum for this litigation. Centralization in this forum permits the Panel to effect the Section 1407 assignment to a transferee judge with prior experience overseeing Seroquel litigation who can steer this litigation on a steady and expeditious course. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, the actions listed on Schedules A and B are transferred to the Middle District of Florida and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Anne C. Conway for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that claims against Janssen and Lilly in the actions listed on Schedule B are simultaneously separated and remanded to their respective transferor courts. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, transfer is denied with respect to the actions listed on Schedule C. 3 SCHEDULE A MDL-1769—In re Seroquel Products Liability Litigation Northern District of California Lamont Belpuliti v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, et al., C.A. No. 3:06-550 John Baytos v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, et al., C.A. No. 3:06-556 Shelley Powell, et al. v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, et al., C.A. No. 3:06-557 Debra Boyer v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, et al., C.A. No. 3:06-559 Lori Carroll, et al. v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, et al., C.A. No. 3:06-562 Eddi Glover v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, et al., C.A. No. 3:06-564 Kathleen McAllister v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, et al., C.A. No. 3:06-568 Michael Hawkins v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, et al., C.A. No. 3:06-569 Dawn Burgess v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, et al., C.A. No. 3:06-573 Edward Sulkowski v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, et al., C.A. No. 3:06-586 Sharie Walker v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, et al., C.A. No. 3:06-587 *1380 Carole McIntyre v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, et al., C.A. No. 3:06-589 James Frederick, et al. v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, et al., C.A. No. 3:06-590 Laurel Morris v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, et al., C.A. No. 3:06-592 Deborah Collier v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, et al., C.A. No. 3:06-599 Julia Boatwright v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, et al., C.A. No. 3:06-602 Summerstorm Weaver v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, et al., C.A. No. 3:06-604 Gregory Simmons v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, et al., C.A. No. 3:06-622 Anita Buchanan v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, et al., C.A. No. 3:06-623 Mary Popp v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceutical, LP, et al., C.A. No. 3:06-624 Dianne Mack v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, et al., C.A. No. 3:06-627 David Mozingo v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, et al., C.A. No. 3:06-628 Terri Lockhart, etc. v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, et al., C.A. No. 3:06-644 Katherene Hopkins-Hyche, et al. v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, et al., C.A. No. 3:06-645 Kelly Truelove v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, et al., C.A. No. 3:06-651 John Masterson v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, et al., C.A. No. 3:06-657 Betty Evans v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, et al., C.A. No. 3:06-669 Jeffrey Boal v. AstraZeneca, Pharmaceuticals, LP, et al., C.A. No. 4:06-548 Dawn Bellman, et al. v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, et al., C.A. No. 4:06-552 La Monte Lear v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, et al., C.A. No. 4:06-571 Glenn Biskup. et al. v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, et al., C.A. No. 4:06-574 Jonathan Sullivan v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, et al., C.A. No. 4:06-600 Betty Reed v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceutical, LP, et al., C.A. No. 4:06-647 Southern District of Illinois Norma Woll, et al. v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, C.A. No. 3:06-57 Kevin Sanders v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, C.A. No. 3:06-67 Sylvia Spencer v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, C.A. No. 3:06-68 Judy Price v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, C.A. No. 3:06-69 Pamela McCraney-Buzick v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, C.A. No. 3:06-70 Willie Palmer v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, C.A. No. 3:06-71 Roma Wilkens v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, C.A. No. 3:06-72 Cynthia Andrews v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, C.A. No. 3:06-85 Michael Crawford v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, C.A. No. 3:06-96 Sharon Nelson v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, C.A. No. 3:06-97 Betty Woodson v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, C.A. No. 3:06-98 Kenneth Fowler v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, C.A. No. 3:06-110 Carol Jenkins v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, C.A. No. 3:06-111 Dorothy Soucy v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, C.A. No. 3:06-122 *1381 Larry Williams v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, C.A. No. 3:06-123 Charlene Smith, et al. v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, C.A. No. 3:06-124 Anthony Ciaramitaro, et al. v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, C.A. No. 3:06-125 Western District of Louisiana Linda Mae Sonnier v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, et al., C.A. No. 6:05-1022 Frederic Charles Becker v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, C.A. No. 6:06-6 Western District of Missouri Julie Skiles, et al. v. Devon French, M.D., et al., C.A. No. 4:06-28 Eastern District of Texas Loretha Jones, et al. v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, C.A. No. 5:06-18 SCHEDULE B MDL-1769 — In re Seroquel Products Liability Litigation Northern District of California Joy Orie v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, et al., C.A. No. 3:06-542 Michelle Massey, et al. v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, et al., C.A. No. 3:06-544 Mark Bobal v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, et al., C.A. No. 3:06-547 Jerry Bradley, Sr., et al. v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, et al., C.A. No. 3:06-549 John Heigl v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, et al., C.A. No. 3:06-551 Barbara Dortch v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, et al., C.A. No. 3:06-555 Ned Godfrey v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, et al., C.A. No. 3:06-565 Ethel Harkins v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, et al., C.A. No. 3:06-566 Elsie Rosales v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, et al., C.A. No. 3:06-567 Shirley Goldsmith v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, et al., C.A. No. 3:06-570 Marjorie Hess v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, et al., C.A. No. 3:06-572 Barry Derosky, et al. v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, et al., C.A. No. 3:06-577 Gail Gringel v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, et al., C.A. No. 3:06-578 Leona Cardwell v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, et al., C.A. No. 3:06-582 Sandra Chathams v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, et al., C.A. No. 3:06-585 Lisa Peat, et al. v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, et al., C.A. No. 3:06-591 Lucas Webb v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, et al., C.A. No. 3:06-598 William Kasperson v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, et al., C.A. No. 3:06-611 Cheryl Levy v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, et al., C.A. No. 3:06-613 Jennifer Bosaw, et al. v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, et al., C.A. No. 3:06-618 Kenneth King v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, et al., C.A. No. 3:06-620 William O’Hosky v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, et al., C.A. No. 3:06-625 Samantha Gangidine v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, et al., C.A. No. 3:06-643 Loraine Clements v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, et al., C.A. No. 3:06-655 *1382 Donna Ali v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, et al., C.A. No. 3:06-658 Larry Adams, Jr. v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, et al., C.A. No. 3:06-660 Lori Robinson v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, et al., C.A. No. 3:06-663 Dennis Porter v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, et al., C.A. No. 3:06-668 Sharon Tenney, et al. v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, et al., C.A. No. 4:06-541 Laura Faulk, et al. v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, et al., C.A. No. 4:06-553 Mary Geones, et al. v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, et al., C.A. No. 4:06-580 Donna Linderman v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, et al., C.A. No. 4:06-614 Raymond Weldon v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, et al., C.A. No. 4:06-615 Quincy Alderson v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, et al., C.A. No. 4:06-621 Clinton Spung v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, et al., C.A. No. 4:06-626 Nichol Ledbetter v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, et al., C.A. No. 4:06-642 Winifred Thomas v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, et al., C.A. No. 4:06-659 District of New Jersey Carlos Diciolla, et al. v. Johnson & Johnson Co., et al., C.A. No. 2:05-4570 SCHEDULE C MDL-1769 -In re Seroquel Products Liability Litigation Northern District of California John Jones v. AstraZeneca Phamaceuticals, LP, et al., C.A. No. 3:06-546 Casey Jones, et al. v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, et al., C.A. No. 3:06-554 Tracy Martin v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, et al., C.A. No. 3:06-560 James Miller, et al. v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, et al., C.A. No. 3:06-563 Emanuel Johnson, Jr., et al. v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, et al., C.A. No. 3:06-576 Cheryl Cole, et al. v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, et al., C.A. No. 3:06-581 Marisa Castillo v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, et al., C.A. No. 3:06-583 Steven Carr v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, et al., C.A. No. 3:06-584 Herman McAfee v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, et al., C.A. No. 3:06-593 Andre Senay v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, et al., C.A. No. 3:06-594 Amesha Throne v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, et al., C.A. No. 3:06-595 Faith McConnell v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, et al., C.A. No. 3:06-596 Patti Cato, et al. v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, et al., C.A. No. 3:06-597 Wendy Melebeck v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, et al., C.A. No. 3:06-605 Cynthia Crockett v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, et al., C.A. No. 3:06-607 *1383 James Martin v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, et al., C.A. No. 3:06-617 Rodney Davis v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, et al., C.A. No. 3:06-619 Dorothy McGee, et al. v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceutical, LP, et al., C.A. No. 3:06-641 Lori Brendgard v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, et al., C.A. No. 4:06-603 Debra Gaines v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, et al., C.A. No. 4:06-612 Jeanette Severi v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, et al., C.A. No. 4:06-616 Corde Williams v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, et al., C.A. No. 4:06-656 SCHEDULE D MDL-1769 -In re Seroquel Products Liability Litigation Northern District of California Kenneth Calkin, et al. v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, et al., C.A. No. 3:06-540 Todd Fletcher v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, et al., C.A. No. 3:06-579 Nancy Burger v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, et al., C.A. No. 3:06-588 Ramon Fernandez v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, et al., C.A. No. 3:06-601 Angela DiMatteo v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, et al., C.A. No. 3:06-650 Judy DePastino v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, et al., C.A. No. 3:06-664 Betty Anderson v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, et al., C.A. No. 4:06-648 Brenda McCulley v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, et al., C.A. No. 4:06-649 District of New Jersey James Kane v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, et al., C.A. No. 2:05-4558 Footnotes [1] The Panel has been notified of over 120 related actions pending in multiple federal districts. In light of the Panel's disposition of this docket, these actions will be treated as potential tag-along actions. See Rules 7.4 and 7.5, R.P.J.P.M.L., 199 F.R.D. 425, 435-36 (2001). [2] Eight additional Northern District of California actions and one additional District of New Jersey action listed on Schedule D were encompassed by the motions, but have been closed in their respective districts; accordingly, the question of transfer of these actions is now moot. [3] With respect to the actions on Schedules B and C, the Panel plans to issue conditional transfer orders embracing claims involving Zyprexa to MDL-1596—In re Zyprexa Products Liability Litigation. See Rules 7.4 and 7.5, R.P.J.P.M.L., 199 F.R.D. at 435-36.