In re Juul Labs, Inc.

• Decision Date: 02 October 2019
• Docket Number: MDL No. 2913
• Citation: 396 F.Supp.3d 1366 (Mem)
• Parties: IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC., MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION
• Court: Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

396 F.Supp.3d 1366 (Mem)

IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC., MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION

MDL No. 2913

United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.

October 2, 2019

TRANSFER ORDER

SARAH S. VANCE, Chair Before the Panel : Common defendant Juul Labs, Inc. (JLI) moves under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to centralize this litigation in the Northern District of California or the District of New Jersey. The litigation consists of the ten actions listed on the attached Schedule A, five in the Northern District of California, two in the Middle District of Alabama, and one each in the Middle District of Florida, the Southern District of Florida, and the Southern District of New York. The Panel has been notified of more than forty potentially-related actions.¹

The actions in this litigation involve allegations that JLI has marketed its JUUL nicotine delivery products in a manner designed to attract minors, that JLI’s marketing misrepresents or omits that JUUL products are more potent and addictive than cigarettes, that JUUL products are defective and unreasonably dangerous due to their attractiveness to minors, and that JLI promotes nicotine addiction. The actions include both putative class actions and individual personal injury cases. In the briefing to the Panel, a number of responding plaintiffs argued that the Panel should create two MDLs – one for the putative class actions in the Northern District of California, and a second for the individual actions in the District of New Jersey.² The plaintiffs who first advocated that position stated at oral argument that they now support centralization of all actions in a single MDL. None of the other plaintiffs who filed briefs in favor of a two-MDL approach presented oral argument. All other responding parties support centralization of all related actions in one MDL, but they disagree on an appropriate transferee district. Suggested districts include the Northern District of California, the Eastern District of Louisiana, the District of Maryland, and the District of New Jersey.

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 Northern District of California will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. These actions share multiple factual issues concerning the development, manufacture, labeling, and marketing of JUUL products, and the alleged risks posed by use of those products. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery, the possibility of inconsistent rulings on class certification, Daubert motions, and other pretrial matters, and conserve judicial and party resources.

The proposal to create two MDLs is not well-taken. Given the substantial overlap in the core factual issues, parties, and claims, a single MDL will best achieve Section 1407 ’s purposes. The Panel frequently centralizes dockets comprising both class actions and individual cases. See, e.g. , In re Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Prods. Liab. Litig. , 357 F. Supp. 3d 1391 (J.P.M.L. 2018) (centralizing litigation consisting of personal injury cases, class actions asserting medical monitoring and property damage claims, and actions by various governmental entities). As with those dockets, the transferee judge can use separate tracks or other appropriate pretrial techniques to accommodate any differences among the actions.

We select the Northern District of California as the transferee district. JLI is headquartered in that district, and it represents that most of the key evidence and witnesses are located there. Five constituent...