IN RE AH ROBINS CO., INC." DALKON SHIELD" LIAB. LIT., 211.
| Court | United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation |
| Citation | 406 F. Supp. 540 |
| Docket Number | No. 211.,211. |
| Parties | In re A. H. ROBINS CO., INC. "DALKON SHIELD" IUD PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. |
| Decision Date | 08 December 1975 |
406 F. Supp. 540
In re A. H. ROBINS CO., INC. "DALKON SHIELD" IUD PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION.
No. 211.
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.
December 8, 1975.
As Corrected December 8, 1975.
Before ALFRED P. MURRAH*, Chairman, and JOHN MINOR WISDOM, EDWARD WEINFELD, EDWIN A. ROBSON, WILLIAM H. BECKER, JOSEPH S. LORD, III, and STANLEY A. WEIGEL, Judges of the Panel.
OPINION AND ORDER
PER CURIAM.
I. Background of the Litigation
The Dalkon Shield is an intrauterine contraceptive device that was invented in 1968. It was clinically tested from September 1968 to November 1969, at which time it was commercially introduced to the medical profession by the Dalkon Corporation. On June 12, 1970, the A. H. Robins Co., Inc. (Robins), a manufacturer and distributor of pharmaceuticals and other products, acquired all rights to the Dalkon Shield. Robins then initiated its own program to test the product and simultaneously began to market it. Between June 12, 1970, and June 28, 1974, approximately 2.2 million Dalkon Shields were inserted in women in the United States. On the latter date, Robins voluntarily suspended distribution of the Dalkon Shield.
A Dalkon Shield could be inserted only by a physician, who normally obtained the device from a surgical supply house. Each Dalkon Shield package contained labeling instructions and materials that described its advantages and disadvantages. It was the physician's responsibility to explain to the prospective wearer these advantages and disadvantages and, if the decision was made to have the Dalkon Shield inserted, to perform certain preliminary fitting procedures outlined in the labeling instructions.
During the years in which the Dalkon Shield has been utilized, a number of women have had adverse reactions to the device. Robins informs us that 286 actions involving the Dalkon Shield are currently pending, 94 actions in 35 federal
The plaintiffs in the federal actions have alleged that the Dalkon Shield caused them to sustain various injuries, including perforation of the uterus, infections of the reproductive organs, pregnancy, spontaneous abortion, fetal injuries, cancer of the uterus, maternal blindness and loss of consortium. Although not named in every action, the defendants include Robins; its personnel; other companies and their personnel involved in the manufacture, distribution and testing of the Dalkon Shield; and local physicians, clinics and hospitals. Plaintiffs are proceeding on legal theories that differ from action to action. One legal theory is that defendants were negligent in the design, testing, manufacture, inspection or distribution of the Dalkon Shield. Another theory is that Robins' promotion and labeling were misleading and failed to warn the prospective wearer of the dangers of the Dalkon Shield.
Discovery has begun in some of the actions and has progressed to various stages of completion. In addition, one action has gone to trial in a Kansas state court and judgment has been entered against Robins.
II. Proceedings Before the Panel
Fifty-four actions pending in 22 different districts are before the Panel for Section 1407 consideration as a result of a show cause order issued by the Panel.1 Defendant Robins favors transfer to the Eastern District of Virginia. Plaintiffs in one action support transfer to the Northern District of Illinois or, in the alternative, to a federal district court in Kansas or Michigan. While a few other plaintiffs favor transfer, most of the other responding parties oppose transfer. Some of these opponents of transfer present arguments in the alternative: plaintiffs in thirteen actions support transfer to the District of Kansas at Wichita; plaintiffs in one action suggest transfer to a federal district court in the Kansas City metropolitan area; plaintiffs in four actions request transfer to the District of Kansas, the Northern District of Illinois or the Southern District of Indiana; and the defendant in one action urges that the claims of plaintiffs against it be separated and remanded to the District of the District of Columbia.
We find that these actions involve common questions of fact and that their transfer to the District of Kansas for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 will best serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation.
III. Arguments of the Parties
Defendant Robins argues that every action shares common factual issues relating to what it did or did not do, knew or did not know and told or did not tell with respect to the design, testing, manufacture, inspection, distribution, promotion and labeling of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Friar v. Vanguard Holding Corp.
...and our own is indisputably sharp (compare, e. g., Matter of Robins Co. "Dalkon Shield" IUD Prods. Liab. Litigation, Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit. 406 F.Supp. 540, with Rosenfeld v. Robins Co., 63 A.D.2d 11, 407 N.Y.S.2d 196, app. dsmd. 46 N.Y.2d 731, 413 N.Y.S.2d 374, 385 N.E.2d The policy of rule 23 ......
-
In re "Agent Orange" Product Liability Lit., Nos. MDL 381, CV 98-6383(JBW), CV 99-3056(JBW).
...Massachusetts on July 31, 1973, 399 F.Supp. 1106 (D.Mass.1975); In re "A. H. Robins Co., Inc., Dalkon Shield" IUD Products Liab. Litig., 406 F.Supp. 540 (J.P.M.D.L.1975) (consolidation for pretrial proceedings of actions involving claims for damages arising out of use of intrauterine contra......
-
A.H. Robins Co., Inc., In re, Nos. 88-1755
...of the mounting Dalkon Shield case burden. See In re A.H. Robins Co., Inc. "Dalkon Shield" IUD Products Liability Litigation, 406 F.Supp. 540 (J.P.M.D.L.1975); 419 F.Supp. 710 (J.P.M.D.L.1976); and 438 F.Supp. 942 (J.P.M.D.L.1977). After the entry of a number of such orders of transfer, the......
-
In re Agent Orange Product Liability Litigation, MDL No. 381.
...and products liability cases such as "Agent Orange," A.H. Robins Co., Inc., "Dalkon Shield" IUD Products Liability Litigation, 406 F.Supp. 540 (J.P.M.D.L.1975) (consolidation for pretrial proceedings of 54 actions involving claims for damages arising out of use of intrauterine contraceptive......
-
In re Agent Orange Product Liability Litigation, MDL No. 381.
...and products liability cases such as "Agent Orange," A.H. Robins Co., Inc., "Dalkon Shield" IUD Products Liability Litigation, 406 F.Supp. 540 (J.P.M.D.L.1975) (consolidation for pretrial proceedings of 54 actions involving claims for damages arising out of use of intrauterine contraceptive......
-
In re No. Dist. of Cal." Dalkon Shield" IUD Products, C-80-2213 SW.
...316. 118 See note 41 supra and note 156 infra. 119 See In re A. H. Robins Co., Inc., "Dalkon Shield" IUD Products Liability Litigation, 406 F.Supp. 540 120 28 U.S.C. ? 1407(a) provides: "(a) When civil actions involving one or more common questions of fact are pending in different districts......
-
Friar v. Vanguard Holding Corp.
...and our own is indisputably sharp (compare, e. g., Matter of Robins Co. "Dalkon Shield" IUD Prods. Liab. Litigation, Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit. 406 F.Supp. 540, with Rosenfeld v. Robins Co., 63 A.D.2d 11, 407 N.Y.S.2d 196, app. dsmd. 46 N.Y.2d 731, 413 N.Y.S.2d 374, 385 N.E.2d The policy of rule 23 ......
-
In re "Agent Orange" Product Liability Lit., s. MDL 381, CV 98-6383(JBW), CV 99-3056(JBW).
...Massachusetts on July 31, 1973, 399 F.Supp. 1106 (D.Mass.1975); In re "A. H. Robins Co., Inc., Dalkon Shield" IUD Products Liab. Litig., 406 F.Supp. 540 (J.P.M.D.L.1975) (consolidation for pretrial proceedings of actions involving claims for damages arising out of use of intrauterine contra......