“[W]e look to the overall convenience of the parties and witnesses, not just those of a single plaintiff or defendant in isolation.”
How later courts described this case
- “[W]e look to the overall convenience of the parties and witnesses, not just those of a single plaintiff or defendant in isolation.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
VELL Y Gilat els TESTE Cert doy ce cL TE ee EE EEE EES EE EE
the original on file in my office. Attest: Sandy Opacich, Clerk
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio
By: /s/Robert Pitts mn
Deputy Clerk op
ory UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
IN RE: NATIONAL PRESCRIPTION MDL No. 2804
OPIATE LITIGATION
TRANSFER ORDER
Before the Panel:* Plaintiffs in fifteen actions and Northern District of Mississippi
defendant North Mississippi Medical Center move under Panel Rule 7.1 to vacate the orders
conditionally transferring their respective actions, which are listed on Schedule A, to MDL No.
2804. Various responding defendants! oppose the motions. The motion to vacate the CTO in the
Northern District of Mississippi action is unopposed.
After considering the arguments of counsel, we find these actions involve common
questions of fact with the actions previously transferred to MDL No. 2804, and that transfer under
28 U.S.C. § 1407 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 forth in our
order directing centralization. In that order, we held that the Northern District of Ohio was an
appropriate Section 1407 forum for actions sharing factual questions regarding the allegedly
improper marketing and distribution of various prescription opiate medications into states, cities,
and towns across the country. See In re Nat’l Prescription Opiate Litig., 290 F. Supp.3d 1375,
1378-79 (J.P.M.L. 2017).
Despite some variances among the actions before us, all share a factual core with the MDL
actions: the manufacturer and distributor defendants’ alleged knowledge of and conduct regarding
the diversion of these prescription opiates, as well as the manufacturers’ allegedly improper
marketing of the drugs. See id. These actions therefore fall within the MDL’s ambit.
Plaintiffs and defendant oppose transfer by principally arguing that federal jurisdiction is
lacking over their cases. But opposition to transfer based on a jurisdictional challenge is
Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton did not participate in the decision of this matter.
Amerisourcebergen Corp. and Amerisourcebergen Drug Corp.; Cardinal Health, Inc.; and
McKesson Corp. (distributor defendants); Actavis, LLC, Actavis Pharma, Inc.; Cephalon, Inc.;
Endo Health Solutions Inc., Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc.;
Janssen Pharmaceutica, Inc.; Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Johnson & Johnson;
Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Par Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Par Pharmaceutical
Companies, Inc.; Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.; Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.; and
Watson Laboratories, Inc. (manufacturing defendants).
EE
insufficient to warrant vacating conditional transfer of factually related cases. Most opponents of
transfer also argue that including their actions in this large MDL will cause them inconvenience
and delay the progress of their actions, including the resolution of their remand motion. Given the
undisputed factual overlap with the MDL proceedings, transfer is justified in order to facilitate the
efficient conduct of the litigation as a whole. See In re Watson Fentanyl Patch Prods. Liab. Litig.,
883 F. Supp. 2d 1350, 1351-52 (J.P.M.L. 2012) (“[W]e look to the overall convenience of the
parties and witnesses, not just those of a single plaintiff or defendant in isolation.”).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the actions listed on Schedule A are transferred to the
Northern District of Ohio and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Dan A.
Polster for inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.
PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
4 Caldwell
Chair
Catherine D. Perry Matthew F. Kennelly
David C. Norton Roger T. Benitez
Dale A. Kimball
IN RE: NATIONAL PRESCRIPTION OPIATE LITIGATION MDL No. 2804
SCHEDULE A
Southern District of Alabama
POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS v. MCKESSON CORPORATION, ET AL.,
C.A. No. 1:20-00438
POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS v. AMERISOURCEBERGEN DRUG
CORPORATION, C.A. No. 1:20-00440
POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS v. CARDINAL HEALTH, INC.,
C.A. No. 1:20-00443
Eastern District of California
CITY OF SACRAMENTO, ET AL. v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES,
LTD., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:20-01824
Eastern District of Kentucky
PAINTS VILLE HOSPITAL COMPANY, LLC, ET AL. v. AMNEAL
PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC, ET AL., C.A. No. 7:20-00102
Northern District of Mississippi
GREER v. ELLIOTT, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:20-00248
Eastern District of Missouri
HICKORY COUNTY v. ALLERGAN PLC, ET AL., C.A. No. 4:20-01121
NEW MADRID COUNTY v. ALLERGAN PLC, ET AL., C.A. No. 4:20-01125
ADAIR COUNTY v. ALLERGAN PLC, ET AL., C.A. No. 4:20-01136
ANDREW COUNTY, MISSOURI v. ALLERGAN PLC, ET AL., C.A. No. 4:20-01150
DEKALB COUNTY v. ALLERGAN PLC, ET AL., C.A. No. 4:20-01191
GRUNDY COUNTY v. ALLERGAN PLC, ET AL., C.A. No. 4:20-01195
RALLS COUNTY v. ALLERGAN PLC, ET AL., C.A. No. 4:20-01252
Western District of Oklahoma
HARMON COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS v. CEPHALON, INC.,
ET AL., C.A. No. 5:20-00850
ADR
Eastern District of Pennsylvania
LOWER MAKEFIELD TOWNSHIP v. PURDUE PHARMA L.P., ET AL.,
C.A. No. 2:20-03695
Eastern District of Virginia
DINWIDDIE COUNTY v. MALLINCKRODT, PLC, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:20-00606