In re Oxycontin II

• Decision Date: 21 September 2010
• Citation: 76 A.D.3d 1019,908 N.Y.S.2d 239
• Parties: In the Matter of OXYCONTIN II. Janet Miller, et al., respondents; Purdue Pharma Company, et al., appellants.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

908 N.Y.S.2d 239 76 A.D.3d 1019 In the Matter of OXYCONTIN II. Janet Miller, et al., respondents; Purdue Pharma Company, et al., appellants. Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York. Sept. 21, 2010.

Chadbourne & Parke LLP, New York, N.Y. (Donald I. Strauber, Mary T. Yelenick, Phoebe A. Wilkinson, and Alexandra A. Nellos of counsel), and Harold Siegel, Staten Island, N.Y., for appellants (one brief filed).

Sanders Viener Grossman, LLC, Mineola, N.Y. (Douglas H. Sanders, Melissa C. Ingrassia, Aybike Donuk, and Michael Ihrig of counsel), for respondents.

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, New York, N.Y. (J. Russell Jackson of counsel; Robin S. Conrad and Amar D. Sarwal on the brief), for amicus curiae Chamber of Commerce of United States of America.

Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, New York, N.Y. (David W. Ichel, Mary Elizabeth McGarry, and Chantale Fiebig of counsel; Hugh F. Young on the brief), for amicus curiae Product Liability Advisory Council, Inc.

Aaron D. Twerski, Brooklyn, N.Y., amicus curiae pro se.

A. GAIL PRUDENTI, P.J., STEVEN W. FISHER, SHERI S. ROMAN, and SANDRA L. SGROI, JJ.

In actions to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., which were joined for discovery, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Maltese, J.), dated February 10, 2009, which denied their motion pursuant to CPLR 327(a) to dismiss the complaints of those plaintiffs who reside outside of New York State on the ground of forum non conveniens.

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, on the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, with costs, and the defendants' motion pursuant to CPLR 327(a) to dismiss the complaints of the plaintiffs who reside outside of New York State is granted on condition that the defendants stipulate (1) that they will accept service of process in newly commenced out-of-state actions upon the same causes of action as those asserted in the instant complaints by the out-of-state plaintiffs; (2) that they will waive any defenses which were not available to them in New York at the time of service upon them of a copy of this decision and order; (3) that each deposition of any of their home-office employees taken by a plaintiff's counsel may be cross-noticed and deemed to be taken in all of the cases of that counsel; and (4) that, in the new forum, they will not raise any objection to having their home-office employees appear for deposition or trial on the ground of venue or location of the lawsuit; the out-of-state plaintiffs' time to commence the new actions shall be within 90days after service of the stipulation upon the plaintiffs; and it is further,

ORDERED that the defendants' time to stipulate shall be within 30 days after service upon them of a copy of this decision and order; in the event that the defendants fail to so stipulate, then the order is affirmed, with costs.

Oxycontin is an opioid analgesic drug containing oxycodone hydrochloride, which allegedly has a high potential for abuse. After 1,117 personal injury actions were commenced and settled in New York State by numerous plaintiffs, of whom 924 were not residents of New York State, a second wave of lawsuits followed. The plaintiffs in the second wave, like those in the first, claim to have been injured or derivatively injured by the ingestion of prescription Oxycontin. The second wave originally consisted of 19 additional complaints filed by a Long Island law firm which had been advertising for plaintiffs. Only one of the plaintiffs in the second wave was a New York resident; none of the nonresident plaintiffs alleged that he or she had any connection to New York. As of the time this appeal was taken, however, there were 246 actions pending in Richmond County on behalf of nonresident plaintiffs and 29 pending on behalf of resident plaintiffs. The numbers have increased since the filing of the appeal. The nonresident plaintiffs come from more than 40 states and Puerto Rico. An order of coordination pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.69 placed of all the actions in Richmond County, where the coordinating Justice denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaints of the out-of-state plaintiffs on the ground of forum non conveniens. The defendants appeal.

The Court of Appeals has said that, "[o]rdinarily, nonresidents are permitted to enter New York courts to litigate their disputes as a matter of comity. Obviously, however, our courts are not required to add to their financial and administrative burdens by entertaining litigation which does not have any connection with this State. The common-law doctrine of forum non conveniens, also articulated inCPLR 327, permits a court to ... dismiss such actions where it is determined that the action, although jurisdictionally sound, would be better adjudicated elsewhere" ( Islamic Republic of Iran v. Pahlavi, 62 N.Y.2d 474, 478-479, 478 N.Y.S.2d 597, 467 N.E.2d 245 [footnote omitted] ). The Supreme Court held that the actions brought by the nonresident plaintiffs should be adjudicated in New York State. We disagree and reverse, because we conclude that, although jurisdictionally sound, the actions brought by the nonresidents would be better adjudicated elsewhere.

On a motion to dismiss on the ground of forum non conveniens,the burden is on the defendant challenging the forum to demonstrate that considerations relevant...