IN RE AH ROBINS CO., INC., ETC.
| Decision Date | 16 August 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 211.,211. |
| Citation | 453 F. Supp. 108 |
| Parties | In re A. H. ROBINS CO., INC., "DALKON SHIELD" IUD PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. |
| Court | Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation |
Before JOHN MINOR WISDOM, Chairman, and EDWARD WEINFELD, EDWIN A. ROBSON, JOSEPH S. LORD, III, STANLEY A. WEIGEL, ANDREW A. CAFFREY and ROY W. HARPER*, Judges of the Panel.
The Panel, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, previously has transferred several actions in this litigation to the District of Kansas and, with the consent of that court, assigned them to the Honorable Frank G. Theis for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. In re A. H. Robins Co., Inc. "Dalkon Shield" IUD Products Liability Litigation, 438 F.Supp. 942 (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit. 1977); 419 F.Supp. 710 (J.P.M.L.1976); 406 F.Supp. 540 (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit.1975). All the actions in this litigation involve claims for injuries allegedly incurred as the result of using the "Dalkon Shield" intrauterine device. Defendant A. H. Robins Co., Inc. (Robins) acquired all rights to the "Dalkon Shield" in June, 1970.
Upon the suggestion of Judge Theis, the Panel issued an order on February 17, 1978, as amended February 22, 1978, to show cause why the actions listed on the following Schedule A1 should not be remanded to their transferor districts.2 See Rule 11(c), R.P.J.P.M.L., 65 F.R.D. 253, 261 (1975). Plaintiff in one of the actions makes a qualified objection to remand. Robins does not object to remand but requests that the Panel's order of remand include suggestions to the transferor judges concerning the further conduct of the remanded actions. Lead and liaison counsel for the plaintiffs and one other counsel representing several plaintiffs oppose any qualifications on remand.
We find that remand of the actions on Schedule A is appropriate at this time and, accordingly, we order the actions remanded to their respective transferor courts. We decline to make any suggestions or include any qualifications that could be perceived as attempts to direct the transferor judges or to make any suggestions to them in the discharge of duties and responsibilities committed solely to those judges.
The actions that Judge Theis has recommended for remand are actions that name Robins as the sole defendant. Judge Theis states that while all pretrial proceedings have not been completed in these actions, all pretrial proceedings of a general nature have been concluded. Judge Theis considers remand of these actions appropriate at this time because the objectives of centralized pretrial proceedings under Section 1407 have been achieved, and because completion of the remaining discovery and resolution of the remaining issues can most expeditiously be effectuated by the transferor courts.3
Plaintiff in one action supports remand of her action only if the Panel's order of remand expressly requires the transferor courts to allow the parties to continue local discovery. Similarly, Robins also desires that the remand order protect the right of the parties to continue pretrial proceedings. Additionally, Robins requests the Panel to suggest that all transferor courts consider Robins's national trial calendar in setting actions for trial.
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 (Jud.Pan. Mult.Lit.1977). When actions are transferred pursuant to Section 1407, it is recognized that in some cases situations exist where the purpose of the statute has been satisfied and areas of discovery remain that more properly can be concluded in the original transferor district. The statute contemplates that the transferee judge will conduct the common pretrial proceedings with respect to the actions and any other pretrial proceedings as the transferee judge considers appropriate. Id. Judge Theis's suggestion that remand of the actions on Schedule A is appropriate is obviously an expression that he perceives his role under Section 1407 to be completed regarding those actions. We adopt his recommendation and order remand of the actions.
The Panel is neither empowered nor inclined to direct, or suggest to, a transferor judge how he or she should conduct further proceedings in actions after remand. The questions regarding continuing pretrial proceedings and trial coordination raised by some parties to this litigation, to the extent not already addressed by the pretrial orders of the transferee court, will be, upon remand, within the province of the respective transferor courts. See generally In re Air Crash Disaster at Greater Cincinnati Airport (Constance, Kentucky) on November 20, 1967, 354 F.Supp. 275 (Jud.Pan. Mult.Lit.1973). See also In re Equity Funding Corporation of America Securities Litigation, 375 F.Supp. 1378, 1384 (Jud.Pan. Mult.Lit.1974); In re Plumbing Fixture Cases, 298 F.Supp. 484, 489 (Jud.Pan.Mult. Lit.1968).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that all actions on the following Schedule A be, and the same hereby are, remanded to the districts from which they were transferred.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Browning v. Navarro
...the conditional remand order with the clerk of the transferee court. See also In re A.H. Robins, Co., Inc., "Dalkon Shield" IUD Products Liability Litigation, 453 F.Supp. 108, 109 n. 2 (J.P.M.L.1978); In re Penn Central Securities Litigation, 349 F.Supp. 1029 (J.P.M.L.1972).Our research has......
-
In re No. Dist. of Cal." Dalkon Shield" IUD Products, C-80-2213 SW.
...Products Liability Litigation, Docket No. 211 (D.Kan.1977) (unpublished order); In re A. H. Robins Co., Inc., "Dalkon Shield" IUD Products Liability Litigation, 453 F.Supp. 108, 110 (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit.1978). 123 In re A. H. Robins Co., Inc., "Dalkon Shield" IUD Products Liability Litigation,......
-
American Continental Corporation/Lincoln Sav. & Loan Securities Litigation, In re
...14(d) ("The Panel is reluctant to order remand absent a suggestion of remand from the transferee district court."); In re A.H. Robins Co., 453 F.Supp. 108, 110 (J.P.M.L.1978); In re Holiday Magic Securities & Antitrust Litig., 433 F.Supp. 1125, 1126 (J.P.M.L.1977) (both noting that, absent ......
-
A.H. Robins Co., Inc., In re
...orders, returning the cases for further proceedings to the respective transferor courts. In re A.H. Robins Co., Inc. "Dalkon Shield" IUD Products Liability Litigation, 453 F.Supp. 108 (J.P.M.D.L.1978); and 505 F.Supp. 221 (J.P.M.D.L.1981). While these proceedings before the Judicial Panel h......