IN RE TEMPOROMANDIBULAR JOINT (TMJ) IMPLANTS LIT., 1001.

• Decision Date: 25 February 1994
• Docket Number: No. 1001.,1001.
• Citation: 844 F. Supp. 1553
• Parties: In re TEMPOROMANDIBULAR JOINT (TMJ) IMPLANTS PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION.
• Court: Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

844 F. Supp. 1553

In re TEMPOROMANDIBULAR JOINT (TMJ) IMPLANTS PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION.

No. 1001.

Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.

February 25, 1994.

Before JOHN F. NANGLE, Chairman, MILTON POLLACK,^* ROBERT R. MERHIGE, Jr.,^* WILLIAM B. ENRIGHT,^* CLARENCE A. BRIMMER, JOHN F. GRADY, and BAREFOOT SANDERS, Judges of the Panel.

TRANSFER ORDER

JOHN F. NANGLE, Chairman.

This litigation presently consist of the 173 actions listed on the following Schedule A and pending in eleven federal districts as follows:

                  District of Minnesota                   144 actions
                  District of Kansas                       11 actions
                  Western District of Virginia              4 actions
                  Southern District of Ohio                 3 actions
                  District of South Carolina                3 actions
                  Eastern District of Wisconsin             3 actions
                  Southern District of Florida              1 action
                  Northern District of Georgia              1 action
                  District of New Jersey                    1 action
                  Eastern District of Pennsylvania          1 action
                  Western District of Pennsylvania          1 action
                

Before the Panel are three separate motions by various groups of plaintiffs for an order of the Panel, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, centralizing all actions¹ in a single district for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.² Moving plaintiffs suggest one of the following districts as the transferee court: the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the District of New Jersey or the District of Kansas. All non-moving plaintiffs in the actions before the Panel have filed responses in support of centralization in one of these three districts. Defendants E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company (DuPont), Dow Corning Corporation, Dow Corning Wright Corporation, The Dow Chemical Company and Corning Incorporated oppose centralization. If the Panel nevertheless orders centralization, some of these defendants suggest the following districts as alternative transferee forums: the Northern District of California, the District of Arizona, the District of Minnesota, the District of Connecticut or the Eastern District of Michigan.³

On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing held, the Panel finds that the actions in this litigation involve common questions of fact and that centralization under Section 1407 in the District of Minnesota will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. All actions before the Panel are personal injury actions brought by individuals who have been implanted with temporomandibular joint (TMJ) implants. Common factual questions arise in these actions with respect to, inter alia, i) whether the TMJ implants are defective and unreasonably dangerous, ii) whether defendants failed to adequately test the implants and constituent materials or warn of possible risks to TMJ implant recipients, and iii) whether the implants' various constituent materials are prone to break down in recipients' bodies. Centralization under Section 1407 is necessary in order to eliminate duplicative discovery, prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings (especially with respect to class certifications and summary judgments), and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel and the judiciary.

None of the eight federal districts suggested as transferee forums by various parties could be characterized as the center of gravity for this litigation. On balance, however, we are persuaded that the District of Minnesota is the appropriate transferee forum. We note that 1) well over 100 TMJ implant actions have been commenced in that district during the past five years; 2) Judge Paul A. Magnuson, to whom we are assigning this litigation, has presided in a number of these actions, has entered important pretrial rulings, and is therefore familiar with the issues in this docket; and 3) Minnesota is a geographically central and accessible location for this nationwide litigation.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, the actions listed on the following Schedule A and pending in districts other than the District of Minnesota be, and the same hereby are, transferred to the District of Minnesota and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Paul A. Magnuson for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with the actions pending in that district and listed on Schedule A.

SCHEDULE A

MDL-1001 — In re Temporomandibular Joint (TMJ) Implants Products Liability Litigation

Southern District of Florida

Barbara Jacobs Corente v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 1:92-729

Northern District of Georgia

Linda Greene v. Dow Corning Corp., C.A. No. 1:93-2647

District of Kansas

Paula Powers v. Dow Corning Corp., et al., C.A. No. 6:93-1398

Bonnie Dyess v. Dow Corning Corp., et al., C.A. No. 6:93-1399

Gynile Grigg v. Dow Corning Corp., et al., C.A. No. 6:93-1400

Joan Tholen v. Dow Corning Corp., et al., C.A. No. 6:93-1401

Wanda Perry v. Dow Corning Corp., et al., C.A. No. 6:93-1402

Lois Allin v. Dow Corning Corp., et al., C.A. No. 6:93-1407

Deborah A. Yeamans v. Dow Corning Corp., et al., C.A. No. 6:93-1414

Daniel Bender v. Dow Corning Corp., et al., C.A. No. 6:93-1417

Rosetta A. Almon v. Dow Corning Corp., et al., C.A. No. 6:93-1442

Mary Luckeroth v. Dow Corning Corp., et al., C.A. No. 6:93-1443

Mary Margaret Booth v. Dow Corning Corp., et al., C.A. No. 6:93-1444

District of New Jersey

Constance Greco, et al. v. Dow Corning Corp., et al., C.A. No. 2:93-1587

District of Minnesota

Barbara Monsaas v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 3:89-385

Karen Anderson v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 3:89-439

Colleen Sacco v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 3:89-440

Eileen Bentzen v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 3:89-595

Julia Carey v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 3:89-596

Denise Hedlund v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 3:89-597

Ann Dietz v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 3:89-711

Angela T. Johnson v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 3:89-713

Ruth Greengo v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 3:89-714

Karen Polnau v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 3:89-715

Joan Stainbrook v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 3:89-716

Ellen Hart-Shegos v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 3:89-717

Patricia Jo Mingus v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 3:90-131

Melania Barnes v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 3:90-132

Brenda Gnette v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 3:90-197

Don Doty v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 3:90-198

Elizabeth Birk v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 3:90-307

Aarah Aizman v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 3:90-399

Ann O'Phelan v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 3:90-402

Natalie Krick v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 3:90-484

Mary Tvedt v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 3:90-573

Colleen Lindabauer v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 3:90-592 Susan Stevens v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 3:90-593

Charlotte Copiskey v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 3:90-594

Marsha Thaldorf v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 3:90-595

Kelly Dickinson v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 3:90-596

Barbara Dembroski v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 3:90-633

Kathleen Connolly v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 3:90-641

Lisa Parenteau-Houlton v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 3:90-642

Paula Russell v. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 3:90-643

Lorna Graf v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 3:90-666

Sandra Brandtner v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 3:90-667

Kathy Dockendorf v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 3:90-693

Joann Hovde v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 3:90-695

Mary Ann Henderson v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 3:90-696

Rachel Anthony v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 3:90-698

Rosemary Rust v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 3:90-699

Mary Beth Lemke v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 3:90-700

Yvonne Haengi v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 3:90-728

Michelle S. Vandenheuvel v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 3:91-10

Rose Svoboda v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 3:91-26

Charlene Foltz v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 3:91-27

Susan Falvey Howe v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 3:91-28

Marcia Herman v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 3:91-29

Melba Honebrink v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 3:91-30

Marilyn J. Humphrey v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 3:91-31

George Clemens v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 3:91-33

Trudy Rudd v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 3:91-34

Denise Stritesky v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 3:91-36

Betty McConnell v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 3:91-146

Melanie Humenansky v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 3:91-147

Sharon Sneen v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 3:91-190

Karen Wallraf v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 3:91-192

Angela Pederson v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 3:91-193

Janet Sward v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 3:91-194

Georgia Lambert v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 3:91-226

Susan Johnson v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 3:91-350

Mick Gapay v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 3:91-352

Lori Kangas v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 3:91-353

Melissa Crews v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 3:91-354

Candace Carman v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 3:91-356

Debra Kannel v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 3:91-357

Judy Kokorendz v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 3:91-358

Carmella Festa v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 3:91-360

Dave Shinnick v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 3:91-373

Jenie Mohr v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., C.A. No. 3:91-374

Susan Marie Hartfiel v.

...