In re Invokana (CANAGLIFLOZIN) Products Liability Litigation

TRANSFER ORDER Sarah S. Vance, Chair Before the Panel: * Plaintiffs in 29 actions pending in the District of New Jersey move under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to centralize this litigation in that district. The — 1347 — litigation consists of 55 actions, as listed on the attached Schedule A. The Panel has been informed of 44 additional related federal actions.1 The 55 actions involve allegations that ingestion of the drug Invokana may cause a variety of injuries, including diabetic ke-toacidosis and kidney damage, and that defendant Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Janssen), which developed and manufactured the drug, failed to adequately test the drug and warn of its risks. Invokana and its sister drug Invokamet2 belong to a class of diabetes drugs known as Sodium Glucose Cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors. Other SLGT2 inhibitors include Farxiga (dapagliflozin) and Jardiance (em-pagliflozin). Farxiga is marketed and distributed by AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, AstraZeneca LP, AstraZeneca AB, AstraZeneca PLC, and Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. (collectively the Farxiga Defendants), and Jardiance is marketed and distributed by Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Eli Lilly and Company, and Lilly USA, LLC (collectively the Jar-diance Defendants). Of the 55 actions, only one, the Western District of Kentucky House action, is a so-called “combination case”—an action involving ingestion of not only Invokana or Invokamet but also another SGLT2 inhibitor (in this case, Farxi-ga). The central dispute concerning centralization is whether the proposed MDL should include only Invokana/Invokamet cases or cases involving other SGLT2 inhibitors, including Farxiga and Jardiance.3 Moving plaintiffs, as well as plaintiffs in certain other actions, support centralization of only Invokana/Invokamet cases, but differ, to some extent, regarding the choice of a transferee district. Plaintiffs in six District of New Jersey constituent actions (Erway, Johnston, Mullin, Puente, Sanders, and Sarkisyan) and three District of New Jersey potential tag-along action (Aris, Monot, and Plott) support centralization of the Invokana/Invokamet cases in the District of New Jersey.4 Plaintiffs in four Southern District of Illinois constituent actions (Allen, Counts, Freeman, and Schurman) and the Western District of Kentucky House constituent action support centralization of the Invokana/Invoka-met cases in the Southern District of Illinois (or, in the alternative, the District of New Jersey). Plaintiff in an Eastern District of Missouri potential tag-along action (Seamon) supports centralization of Invo-kana/Invokamet cases in the Eastern District of Missouri (or, in the alternative, the District of New Jersey). Plaintiff in the constituent District of Minnesota Schroeder action, as well as plaintiffs in two potential tag-along actions5 (collectively the Schroeder Plaintiffs), argue for “class-wide” centralization, in the Northern District of Illinois, of cases involving not only Invokana but also Farxiga and Jardiance. Plaintiffs in seven potential tag-along actions6 support the — 1348 — Schroeder Plaintiffs’ position in its entirety. Plaintiffs in eight potential tag-along actions7 support class-wide centralization, but in the District of New Jersey. Plaintiff in a potential tag-along action (.Martin) in the Northern District of West Virginia supports class-wide centralization, but in the Northern District of West Virginia (or, in the alternative, the Northern District of Illinois). Janssen supports centralization of only Invokana/Invokamet in the District of New Jersey (or, in the alternative, the Northern District of Illinois). The Farxiga Defendants oppose inclusion of any Farxiga claims or cases in the proposed MDL. If the Panel orders class-wide centralization over their objections, then the Farxiga Defendants favor centralization in either the District of New Jersey or the Northern District of Illinois. The Jardiance Defendants oppose inclusion of any Jardiance claims or cases in the proposed MDL. On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing session held, we find that the Invokana/Invokamet actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization of these cases will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. The actions share factual questions arising from allegations that taking Invokana or Invokamet may result in patients suffering various injui-ies, including diabetic ketoacidosis and kidney damage. The actions thus implicate numerous common issues concerning the development, manufacture, testing, regulatory history, promotion, and labeling of the drugs. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery, prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings on Dauberb issues and other pretrial matters, and conserve the resources of the parties, them counsel, and the judiciary. On the current record, we are not convinced that the MDL should include claims involving Farxiga, Jardiance, or any other SLGT2 inhibitor, including any such claims in “combination cases.” We are “typically hesitant to centralize litigation against multiple, competing defendants which marketed, manufactured and sold similar products.” See, e.g., In re: Yellow Brass Plumbing Component Prods. Liab. Litig., 844 F.Supp.2d 1377, 1378 (J.P.M.L. 2012). Centralizing competing defendants in the same MDL may unnecessarily complicate case management, due to the need to protect trade secret and confidential information. See, e.g., In re: Watson Fentanyl Patch Prods. Liab. Litig., 883 F.Supp.2d 1350, 1351 (J.P.M.L. 2012) (“Centralization of all actions against all manufacturers will add few efficiencies to the resolution of this litigation,” and “could complicate these matters, as defendants may need to erect complicated confidentiality barriers, since they are business competitors.”). In addition, a multi-defen-dant MDL may prolong pretrial proceedings, because of, inter alia, the possible need for separate discovery and motion tracks, as well as the need for additional bellwether trials. Here, especially given the relatively small number of Farxiga-only cases (fifteen), Jardianee-only cases (three), and “combination cases” (three), we conclude that class-wide centralization is not warranted at the present time. We select the District of New Jersey as transferee district for this litigation. Janssen is headquartered in that district, and many witnesses and relevant documents are likely to be found there. In — 1349 — addition, 37 of the constituent actions are pending in that district, as are multiple tag-along actions. Finally, centralization in the District of New Jersey allows us to assign the litigation to Judge Brian R. Martinotti, an able and experienced jurist who has not had the opportunity to preside over an MDL. Judge Martinotti already is presiding over the constituent and tag-along actions pending in the district, and we are confident that he will steer this litigation on a prudent course. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the actions listed on Schedule A and pending outside the District of New Jersey are transferred to the District of New Jersey, and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Brian R. Marti-notti for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the claims in the Western District of Kentucky House action against defendants Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, AstraZeneca PLC, AstraZeneca LP, AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, and AstraZeneca AB are simultaneously separated and remanded to the Western District of Kentucky. SCHEDULE A MDL No. 2750 — IN RE: INVOKANA (CANAGLIFLOZIN) PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION Eastern District of California ANZO v. JANSSEN RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT, LLC, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:15-02217 Northern District of Georgia BRAZIL v. JANSSEN RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT LLC, ET AL., C.A. No. 4:15-00204 Northern District of Illinois DAVIS v. JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., C.A. No. 1:16-08838 Southern District of Illinois SCHURMAN v. JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:15-01180 ALLEN v. JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:15-01195 COUNTS v. JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:15-01196 FREEMAN, ET AL. v. JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:16-00557 Western District of Kentucky HOUSE v. JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:15-00894 ADYE v. JANSSEN RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT LLC, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:16-00107 ADKINS v. JANSSEN RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT, LLC, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:16-00330 WOODWARD v. JANSSEN RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT, LLC, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:16-00486 Eastern District of Louisiana GUIDRY v. JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:15-04591 MADDOX v. JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:16-01189 LESSARD v. JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:16-02329 — 1350 — Middle District of Louisiana JACKSON, ET AL. v. JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:16-00319 Western District of Louisiana MARSHALL v. JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 6:16-00664 RUTLAND v. JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 5:16-00666 District of Minnesota SCHROEDER v. JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., C.A. No. 0:16-03035 District of New Jersey PUENTE, ET AL. v. JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:15-08070 BENJAMIN v. JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:16-01786 PARTINGTON v. JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:16-01787 ANDERS, ET AL. v. JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:16-01897 SWINNEY, ET AL. v. JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:16-01898 SEIFRIED v. JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:16-01931 BOWLING, ET AL. v. JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:16-02048 ROBERTSON, ET AL. v. JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:16-02050 HUMPHRIES, ET AL. v. JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:16-02278 GARCIA v. JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:16-02361 MILBURN v. JANSSEN RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT LLC, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:16-02386 KUNO v. JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:16-02938 THOMPSON v. JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:16-03114 HENDERSON, ET AL. v. JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:16-03362 WADDLE v. JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:16-04024 WARREN v. JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:16-04136 DE SALIS v. JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:16-04484 FOREHAND v. JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:16-04485 JACKSON v. JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:16-04486 ROGERS v. JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:16-04489 SUTHERLAND v. JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:16-04490 LEMKE v. JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:16-05316 JOHNSTON v. JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:16-05383 — 1351 — MULLIN v. JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:16-05388 ERWAY v. JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:16-05394 ERVIN, ET AL. v. JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:16-05478 SARKISYAN, ET AL. v. JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:16-05479 BUCHANAN v. JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:16-05645 FELIX v. JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:16-05649 HUDSON v. JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:16-05674 JAYJOHN, ET AL. v. JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:16-05675 KEMP, ET AL. v. JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:16-05676 LUNA, ET AL. v. JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:16-05677 POOLE v. JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:16-05681 STRINGER, ET AL. v. JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:16-05682 WILLIAMS v. JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:16-05683 SANDERS v. JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:16-05940 Footnotes [1] Those actions and any other related federal actions are potential tag-along actions. See Panel Rules 1.1(h), 7.1, and 7.2. [2] The active ingredient in Invokana is canagli-flozin, while Invokamet contains both canagli-flozin and metformin. [3] Twenty of the 44 potential tag-along actions are Farxiga-only cases, Jardiance-only cases, or "combination cases." [4] The Puente, Sanders, Sarkisyan, and Plott plaintiffs support centralization in the Southern District of Illinois, in the alternative. [5] Southern District of Indiana MaoMurray and Western District of Tennessee Mitchell. [6] Central District of California Gray, Northern District of Florida Kampke, Central District of Illinois Cape, Northern District of Illinois Faedtke, Southern District of Illinois Klein, Southern District of New York Warner, and Northern District of Ohio Carlson. [7] Southern District of New York Burkett, Doty, Fowler, Hudson, Perez, Ponce, Popwell, and Prosser.