IN RE AH ROBINS CO., INC." DALKON SHIELD", ETC., No. 211.

• Court: United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
• Writing for the Court: PER CURIAM
• Citation: 419 F. Supp. 710
• Parties: In re A. H. ROBINS CO., INC. "DALKON SHIELD" IUD PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. Lou Deane Lipman, et al. v. A. H. Robins Co. D. Massachusetts, C.A. No. 75-4569-G. Kathleen Huber v. A. H. Robins Co., et al. C.D. California, C.A. No. CV75-4-AAH. Mirian N. Cohen, et al. v. Donald G. Johnson, et al. S.D. New York, C.A. No. 75 Civ. 6416. Reba Fortenberry v. A. H. Robins Co. W.D. North Carolina, C.A. No. SH-C-201. Wayne Mings, et ux. v. A. H. Robins Co., Inc. N.D. Georgia, Civil Action No. 75-2301A.
• Decision Date: 24 August 1976
• Docket Number: No. 211.

419 F. Supp. 710

In re A. H. ROBINS CO., INC. "DALKON SHIELD" IUD PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION.
Lou Deane Lipman, et al. v. A. H. Robins Co. D. Massachusetts, C.A. No. 75-4569-G.
Kathleen Huber v. A. H. Robins Co., et al. C.D. California, C.A. No. CV75-4-AAH.
Mirian N. Cohen, et al. v. Donald G. Johnson, et al. S.D. New York, C.A. No. 75 Civ. 6416.
Reba Fortenberry v. A. H. Robins Co. W.D. North Carolina, C.A. No. SH-C-201.
Wayne Mings, et ux. v. A. H. Robins Co., Inc. N.D. Georgia, Civil Action No. 75-2301A.

No. 211.

Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.

August 24, 1976.

419 F. Supp. 711

Before JOHN MINOR WISDOM, Chairman, and EDWARD WEINFELD, EDWIN A. ROBSON, WILLIAM H. BECKER, JOSEPH S. LORD, III, STANLEY A. WEIGEL and ANDREW A. CAFFREY, Judges of the Panel.

OPINION AND ORDER

PER CURIAM.

The Panel previously has transferred several actions in this litigation to the District of Kansas and assigned them to the Honorable Frank G. Theis for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407. In re A. H. Robins Co., Inc. "Dalkon Shield" IUD Products Liability Litigation, 406 F.Supp. 540 (Jud.Pan. Mult.Lit.1975). Since the above-captioned actions appeared to share common factual questions with the previously transferred actions, the Panel entered orders conditionally transferring them to the District of Kansas. Plaintiffs in four of these actions and some of the defendants in the New York action have filed motions to vacate the conditional transfer orders. Alternatively, the California plaintiff moves the Panel to transfer all California actions in this litigation to a single California district for Section 1407 pretrial proceedings. Defendant Robins favors transfer of all actions to the District of Kansas. We find that these actions raise questions of fact common to the previously transferred actions and that their transfer to the District of Kansas pursuant to Section 1407 will best serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation.¹

The parties opposed to transfer argue that participation in Section 1407 proceedings will greatly increase their litigation expenses while serving the convenience of only defendant Robins. Plaintiffs in the California and Massachusetts actions also contend that their actions are unique because of the nature of the injuries they have suffered. Should the Panel find transfer appropriate, however, the California...