In re Richardson-Merrell Inc.
| Decision Date | 11 March 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 486.,486. |
| Citation | 533 F. Supp. 489 |
| Parties | In re RICHARDSON-MERRELL INC. "Bendectin" Products Liability Litigation (No. II). |
| Court | Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation |
Before ANDREW A. CAFFREY,* Chairman, and ROY W. HARPER, CHARLES R. WEINER, EDWARD S. NORTHROP, ROBERT H. SCHNACKE, FRED DAUGHERTY, and SAM C. POINTER, Jr., Judges of the Panel.
TRANSFER ORDER
Presently before the Panel are 45 actions pending in 22 districts as follows:
Eastern District of Michigan 6
Eastern District of Pennsylvania 5
Eastern District of Louisiana 4
Northern District of Alabama 3
Western District of Louisiana 3
Southern District of Ohio 3
Northern District of Texas 3
District of Kansas 2
Southern District of New York 2
District of Nevada 2
Northern District of California 1
Middle District of Florida 1
Southern District of Florida 1
Eastern District of Kentucky 1
Middle District of Louisiana 1
District of Maryland 1
Eastern District of New York 1
Western District of Oklahoma 1
Western District of Pennsylvania 1
Eastern District of Texas 1
Southern District of Texas 1
Eastern District of Wisconsin 1
Defendant Richardson-Merrell Inc. (Merrell) has moved to centralize, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, actions in this docket in the Southern District of Ohio for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.1
On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing held, the Panel finds that these actions involve common questions of fact and that centralization of these actions under Section 1407 in the Southern District of Ohio will best serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. Common factual questions arise from the allegations in each action that birth defects were caused by the mother's ingestion during pregnancy of Bendectin, a combination drug manufactured and distributed by Merrell. Centralization under Section 1407 is therefore necessary in order to prevent duplication of discovery, avoid inconsistent pretrial rulings, and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel and the judiciary.
The Southern District of Ohio is clearly the most preferable transferee district. Merrell's operations relating to Bendectin are carried on at Merrell's facilities in Cincinnati, and thus many key witnesses and relevant documents are likely to be found in the Southern District of Ohio.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, the actions listed on the attached Schedule A and pending in districts other than the Southern District of Ohio be, and the same hereby are, transferred to the Southern District of Ohio and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Carl B. Rubin for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with the actions pending in that district and listed on Schedule A.
Michelle Baduske, et al. v. Merrell-National Laboratories, Inc., C.A.No. C81-2449-WAI
Jessica Bartels, et al. v. Merrell-National Laboratories, Inc., C.A.No. 79-8348-Civ-NCR
Thomas S. Birchfield, Jr., et al. v. Merrell-National Laboratories, Inc., C.A.No. 80-209-Orl-Civ-Y
Estate of Alyssia McLeod, etc., et al. v. Merrell-National Laboratories, C.A.No. 81-73
Warren W. Gallaspy, et al. v. Merrell-National Laboratories, Inc., C.A.No. 80-405B
Larry Davis Hodge, II, et al. v. Richardson Merrell, Inc., C.A.No. M-81-214
Lewis Jassey, et al. v. Richardson Merrell, Inc., et al., C.A.No. 80 Civ 5468 (ML)
Kelly E. O'Brien, et al. v. Richardson Merrell, Inc., et al., C.A.No. 81C1694
Bridget A. Dickerson, et al. v. Richardson Merrell, Inc., C.A.No. CV-LV-81-457-HEC Steven R. C. Howe, et al. v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc., C.A.No. CV-LV-80-352
Sarah E. East, et al. v. Merrell-National Laboratories, C.A.No.Civ.-81-866D
Jennifer Branda, et al. v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc., C.A.No. 81-2605
Megan Mahan, et al. v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc., C.A.No. 81-0885
Jesse Nariskus, et al. v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc., C.A.No. 81-3575
Dennis J. Cogan, et al. v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc., C.A.No. 81-2538
Milton Wright, et al. v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc., et al., C.A.No. 80-105B Erie
Lestor Elliott, et al. v. Merrell-National Laboratories, et al., C.A.No. CA3-80-1294-F
Frank Whiddon, et al. v. Merrell-National Laboratories, et al., C.A.No. CA3-80-1298-H
Gary Ross McBay, et al. v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc., et al., C.A.No. CA3-81-1295-F
John I. Williams, et al. v. Merrell-National Laboratories, et al., C.A.No. B-80-542-CA
Clyde E. Mack, et al. v. Merrell-National Laboratories, C.A.No. H-81-361
* Judge Caffrey recused himself and took no part in the decision of this matter.
1 Merrell originally moved the Panel for centralization of 48 actions and subsequently amended its motion for the sole purpose of adding certain actions and deleting other actions. Merrell's amended motion, filed on October 16, 1981, seeks centralization of 52 actions. The schedule of actions attached to Merrell's amended motion, however, includes six actions — Claudia Ann Gagliano, et al. v. Merrell-National Laboratories, Inc., E.D.Louisiana, C.A.No. 81-516; Bradley B. Doe, et al. v. Merrell-National Laboratories, et al., E.D.Michigan, C.A.No. 80-71256; Gina Maurer, et al. v. The William S. Merrell Co., et al., E.D.New York, C.A.No. 79-C-3211; Patrick T. Karl, et al. v. Merrell-National Laboratories, D.Minnesota, C.A.No. Civ 4-80-80; Charles C. Doe, et al. v. Merrell-National Laboratories, et al., E.D. Michigan, C.A.No. 80-71328; and Stephen Carlile, et al. v. Vic Chemical Co., et al., W.D.Texas, C.A.No. A-81-CA-314 — which have been dismissed. In addition, at the oral argument on this matter, counsel for Merrell advised the Panel that Merrell had withdrawn another action — James V. Phillips, et al. v. Merrell-National Laboratories, Inc., et al., S.D.Florida, C.A.No. 80-8321-Civ-ALH — from the scope of its motion. Accordingly, Merrell's amended motion encompasses a total of 45 actions presently pending in federal district courts.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bendectin Products Liability Litigation, In re
...to Bendectin. The present controversy has its roots in a transfer order of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation in early 1982. 533 F.Supp. 489. Pursuant to that order, all Bendectin actions pending in federal courts were transferred to the Southern District of Ohio for consolidate......
-
Richardson by Richardson v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc., RICHARDSON-MERREL
...An appendage resembling a foot was attached to her right hip, and later was amputated.4 In re Richardson-Merrell, Inc. "Bendectin" Prods. Liab. Litig. (No. II), 533 F.Supp. 489 (J.P.M.D.L.1982).5 The trial involved more than a thousand plaintiffs and resulted in a finding by the jury that B......
-
Lynch v. Merrell-National Laboratories
...of Ohio, to handle pretrial proceedings in the Bendectin multidistrict litigation. In re Richardson-Merrell, Inc. "Bendectin" Prod. Liab. Litig. (II), MDL No. 846, 533 F.Supp. 489 (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit.1982). The panel found that the cases involved common questions of fact and that centralizati......
-
McBride v. Merrell Dow and Pharmaceuticals Inc., 82-1786
...Inc. For the sake of convenience, we refer to all of them as "Merrell Dow."2 In re Richardson-Merrell Inc. "Bendectin" Products Liability Litigation, 533 F.Supp. 489, 490 n. 1 (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit.1982), indicates that at least 52 actions challenging the safety of the drug had at that time bee......