In re Lipitor Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 2332.
| Decision Date | 20 April 2012 |
| Docket Number | MDL No. 2332. |
| Citation | 2012 Trade Cases P 78011,856 F.Supp.2d 1355 |
| Parties | IN RE: LIPITOR ANTITRUST LITIGATION. |
| Court | Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HEREBefore KATHRYN H. VRATIL, Acting Chairman, W. ROYAL FURGESON, JR., BARBARA S. JONES, PAUL J. BARBADORO, MARJORIE O. RENDELL, and CHARLES R. BREYER, Judges of the Panel.
TRANSFER ORDER
KATHRYN H. VRATIL, Acting Chairman.
Before the Panel:* Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, plaintiff in an action pendingin the District of Massachusetts moves to centralize this litigation in that district. The motion encompasses that action and three others: two in the District of New Jersey, and one in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, as listed on Schedule A. The Panel has been notified of more than ten additional related actions.1
All responding parties support centralization, but there is disagreement as to an appropriate transferee district. Plaintiff in a District of Massachusetts potential tag-along action supports centralization in the District of Massachusetts, as do plaintiffs in a potential tag-along action pending in the Northern District of California. Plaintiff in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania constituent action supports centralization in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (or, in the alternative, in the District of Massachusetts). Plaintiff in an Eastern District of Pennsylvania potential tag-along action also supports centralization in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Plaintiffs in the two District of New Jersey actions and a District of Puerto Rico potential tag-along action support centralization in the District of New Jersey. Responding defendants 2 also support centralization in the District of New Jersey.
On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, we find that these four actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization under Section 1407 in the District of New Jersey will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. All actions share factual issues arising from allegations that after the generic manufacturer Ranbaxy challenged one or more of the patents covering Pfizer's highly successful Lipitor cholesterol drug, Pfizer and Ranbaxy entered into an illegal agreement to delay the entry of generic versions of Lipitor into the United States market after the expiration of patent protection for Lipitor.3 Centralization under Section 1407 will eliminate duplicative discovery, prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings on class certification, discovery, and other pretrial issues, and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel and the judiciary.
We conclude that the District of New Jersey is an appropriate transferee district for pretrial proceedings in this litigation. Two of the four constituent actions are pending in that district, and Ranbaxy's United States corporate headquarters is located there. The district is also convenient to Pfizer's principal place of business in New York. Judge Peter G. Sheridan, to whom we assign this MDL, is an experienced jurist, and we are confident that he will guide this litigation on a prudent course.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, the actions listed on Schedule A and pending outside the District of New Jersey are transferred to the District of New Jersey and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the HonorablePeter G. Sheridan for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with the actions pending in that district and listed on Schedule A.
IN RE:
LIPITOR ANTITRUST LITIGATION
Professional Drug Company, Inc. v. Pfizer, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 1:11–12058
* Judge John G. Heyburn II took no part in the decision of this matter. Panel members who could be members of the putative classes in this docket have renounced their participation in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Pfizer, Inc.
...as multidistrict litigation before U.S. District Judge Peter G. Sheridan in the District of New Jersey. In re Lipitor Antitrust Litig., 856 F.Supp.2d 1355 (J.P.M.L.2012). The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation issued a conditional transfer order transferring this action to the MDL c......
-
In re Lipitor Antitrust Litig.
...transferred each case to the District of New Jersey, and assigned the matters to Judge Peter G. Sheridan. See In re Lipitor Antitrust Litig. , 856 F.Supp.2d 1355 (J.P.M.L. 2012) ; In re Lipitor Antitrust Litig. , 2012 WL 4069565 (J.P.M.L. Aug. 3, 2012). Thereafter, the direct-purchaser and ......
-
In re Lipitor Antitrust Litig.
...each case to the District of New Jersey, assigning the matters to District Judge Peter G. Sheridan. See In re Lipitor Antitrust Litig. , 856 F.Supp.2d 1355 (J.P.M.L. 2012).Thereafter, the direct-purchaser and end-payor plaintiffs filed amended class action complaints; Lipitor individual-ret......