In re Fresenius Granuflo/Naturalyte Dialysate Prods. Liab. Litig., MDL No. 2428.

• Decision Date: 29 March 2013
• Docket Number: MDL No. 2428.
• Citation: 935 F.Supp.2d 1362
• Parties: IN RE: FRESENIUS GRANUFLO/NATURALYTE DIALYSATE PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION.
• Court: Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

935 F.Supp.2d 1362

IN RE: FRESENIUS GRANUFLO/NATURALYTE DIALYSATE PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION.

MDL No. 2428.

United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation.

March 29, 2013.

Before KATHRYN H. VRATIL, Acting Chairman, W. ROYAL FURGESON, JR., PAUL J. BARBADORO, MARJORIE O. RENDELL, CHARLES R. BREYER, and LEWIS A. KAPLAN, Judges of the Panel.

TRANSFER ORDER
KATHRYN H. VRATIL, Acting Chairman.

Before the Panel:^* Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, plaintiffs in the District of Massachusetts Jones action move to centralize this litigation in the District of Massachusetts. This litigation currently consists of eleven actions pending in seven district courts, as listed on Schedule A.¹ The actions arise from injuries or deaths allegedly caused by use of GranuFlo Acid Concentrate (GranuFlo) and NaturaLyte Liquid Acid Concentrate (NaturaLyte) during hemodialysis.

All responding parties support the motion, but disagree as to the transferee district. Movants, responding defendants,² and plaintiffs in seven actions or potential tag-along actions support transfer to the District of Massachusetts. A separate contingent of plaintiffs in thirty-one actions or potential tag-along actions in various districts suggest centralization in the Southern District of Mississippi. Plaintiffs in six potential tag-along actions in the District of New Jersey and the Eastern District of New York suggest centralization in the District of New Jersey. Another group of plaintiffs with three actions or potential tag-along actions in the Eastern District of New York propose centralization there. Additionally, plaintiffs in three potential tag-along actions in the Eastern District of Louisiana request centralization in that district, while the plaintiff in a Northern District of California potential tag-along action requests centralization in the Northern District of California. Finally, a large number of plaintiffs request, in the alternative, centralization in various districts, including the Northern District of Alabama, the Northern District of California, the District of Massachusetts, the District of New Jersey, and the Southern District of Mississippi.

On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing session held, we find that these actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization of all actions in the District of Massachusetts will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. All the actions share common factual questions arising out of allegations that plaintiffs...