IN RE: Richardson-Merrell, Inc., "Bendectin" Products Liability Litigation (No. II)

Case MDL No. 486 Document 2 Filed 05/19/15 Page 1 of 5 |
A RETR ISTE oo .
DOCKET NO. 486 : FES -9 1987
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LERIGATION oo li	| CLERA C7 io he
IN RE RICHARDSON-MERRELL INC. "BENDECTIN" PRODUCTS LIABILITY A oe A	LITIGATION (NO. II) i ;
Tho
BEFORE ANDREW A. CAFFREY,* CHAIRMAN, ROY W. HARPER, CHARLES R. :
WEINER, EDWARD S. NORTHROP, ROBERT H. SCHNACKE, FRED DAUGHERTY,
AND SAM C. POINTER, JR., JUDGES OF THE PANEL oo
TRANSFER ORDER a Ce
PER CURIAM | ET
Presently before the Panel are 48 actions pending in - :
24 districts as follows: Co
Eastern District of Michigan 7 :
Eastern District of Pennsylvania 5 Co } .
Eastern District of Louisiana 4 Co oo
Northern District of Alabama 3 EI Coe
Western District of Louisiana 3 Le
Southern District of Ohio 3 a
Northern District of Texas 3
District of Kansas 2 sl :
Southern District of New York 2 :
District of Nevada 2 s -
Northern District of California 1 Fo
Middle District of Florida 1 Eo :
Southern District of Florida 1
Eastern District of Kentucky 1 :
Middle District of Louisiana 1 .
District of Maryland 1 To oo
District of Minnesota 1 ,
Eastern District of New York 1 Po
Western District of Oklahoma 1 SY
Western District of Pennsylvania 1 Le ES
Eastern District of Texas 1 RE
Southern District of Texas 1 : : or
Western 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
* Judge Caffrey recused himself and took no part in the
decision of this matter.

Case MDL No. 486 DocunT&T 2 Filed 05/19/15 Page 2 of 5
docket in the Southern District of Ohjg for coordinated
é or consolidated pretrial proceedings.-—On the basis of the papers filed and the hearina 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 pre-
ferable transferee district. Merrell's operations relatina
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, assionedto the Honorable Carl B. Rubin for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings with the actions pending in that district
and listed on Schedule A.
17 Merrell originally moved the Panel for centralization
of 48 actions and subseduently 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 three 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 Labora-
tories, et al., E.D. Michigan, C.A. No. 80-71256; and Gina
Maurer, et al. v. The William S. Merrell Co., et al., E.D.
New York, C.A. No. 79-C-3211 -- which have been dismissed
by orders of the respective courts. 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
i. encompasses a total of 48 actions presently pendina in federal
® district courts.

Case MDL No. 486 Document2 Filed 05/19/15 Page	3 of 5
WS - SCHEDULE A
MDL-486 -- In re Richardson-Merrell, Inc. "Bendectin" Products
~ Liability Litigation (No. II) ——— —
é Northern District of Alabama
: : John W. Greer, Jr., et al. v. Merrell-National Laboratories,
~ C.A. No. cv-80-G-0694-m	___________________—	—— —
: Stephen H. Stanley, et al. v. Merrell-National Laboratories,
Inc., C.A. No. CV-80-H-0702-S
: Melinda L. Tallant, et al. v. Merrell-National Laboratories,
Inc., C.A. No. CV-80-HM-0746-M
Northern District of California
Michelle Baduske, et al. v. Merrell-Mational Laboratories,
Inc., C.A. No. C81-2449-WAI
’ Southern District of Florida
Jessica Bartels, et al. v. Merrell-National Laboratories,
Inc., C.A. No. 79-8348-Civ-NCR
Middle District of Florida
Thomas S. Birchfield, Jr., et al. v. Merrell-National
: Laboratories, Inc., C.A. No. 80-209-Orl1-Civ-Y
: District of Kansas
Amy L. Bruggeman, et al. v. ‘Merrell-National Laboratories,
C.A. No. 81-2099
Kevin M. Stickelman, et al. v. Merrell-National Labora-
tories, C.A. No. 80-2004 J
Eastern District of Kentucky
Estate of Alyssia McLeod, etc., et al. v. Merrell-National
Laboratories, C.A. No. 81-73
"Western District of Louisiana
( Paul M. Chance, et al. v. Richardson Merrell, Inc.,C.A. No. CI 80-1311
John K. Comboy, et al. v. Merrell-National Laboratories,
Inc., C.A. No. CI 80-1220
Sabrina M. Cooper, et al. v. Merrell-National Laboratories,
- Inc., C. A. No. CI 80-1410
Middle District of Louisiana
. ‘Warren W. Gallaspy, et al. v. Merrell-National Laboratories,
Inc., C.A. No. 80-405B
Eastern District of Louisiana
Thelma Hines, et al. v. Richardson Merrell, Inc., et al.,
C.A. No. 81-686
Suzanne Strickland, et al. v. Richardson Merrell, Inc.,
et al., C.A. No. 80-4448
~ Michael E. Wilson, et al. v. Merrell-National Laboratories,
et al., C.A. No. 80-3651
Carmen Gonzales Gomez, etc., et al. v. Merrell-National
Laboratories, et al., C.A. No. 81-2022-Sec.A
: Eastern District of Michigan
Albert A. Doe, et al. v. Merrell-National Laboratories,
C.A. No. 80-70010
Charles C. Doe, et al. v. Merrell-National Laboratories,
et al., C. A. No. 80-71328
. Daniel D. Doe, et al. v. Merrell-National Laboratories,
C.A. No. 80-72902
® Demetria Grandison, et al. v. Merrell-National Laboratories,C.A. No. 81-72067

Case MDL No. 486 Document 2 Filed 05/19/15 Page 4 of 5
Rebecca Matichuk, et al. v. Merrell-National Laboratories,
C.A. No. 81-71762
' LaVerne M. Burzynski, et al. v. Merrell-National Labora-
tories, C.A. No. 81-10021 ’
LC) Brian Wolfe v. Merrell-National Laboratories,	C.A. No. 81-70192 ’
District of Maryland
‘ Larry Davis Hodge, II, et al. v. Richardson Merrell,
Inc., C.A. No. M-81-214
District of Minnesota
Patrick T. Karl, et al. v. Merrell-National Laboratories,
: C.A. No. Civ 4-80-80
Southern District of New York : -
Lewis Jassey, et al. v. Richardson Merrell, Inc., et
al., C.A. No. B80 Civ 5468 (ML)
Nicole Marie Hess, et al. v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc.,
et al., C.A. No. 81 Civ 3365
Eastern District of New York
Kelly E. O'Brien, et al. v. Richardson Merrell, Inc.,
Co et al., C.A. No. 81Cl1l694
District of Nevada
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
Western District of Oklahoma
Sarah E. East, et al. v. Merrell-National Laboratories,
C.A. No. Civ-81-866D
Southern District of Ohio
® Troy AiII, et al. v. Merrell-National Laboratories,et al., C.A. No. C-2-80-354
Sarah A. Hoffman, et al. v. Merrell National Laboratories,
Inc., C.A. No. C-1-80-286
Robbin E. Thomas, et al. v. Merrell-National Laboratories,
- C.A. No. C-1-81-069
Eastern District of Pennsylvania
‘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
. Ryan Hayes, et al. v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc.,
C.A. No. 81-3772
Dennis J. Cogan, et al. v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc.,
C.A. No. 81-2538
Western District of Pennsylvania
: Milton Wright, et al. v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc., :
et al., C.A. No. 80-105B Erie
Western District of Texas
Stephen Carlile, et al. v. Vic Chemical Co., et al.,
C.A. No. A-81-CA-314 -
Northern District of Texas
: 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

Case MDL No. 486 Document2 Filed 05/19/15 Page	5 of 5
1 4 : - :
é Gary Ross McBay, et al. v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc.,et al., C.A. No. CA3-81-1295-F
Eastern District of Texas
John I. Williams, et al. v. Merrell-National Laboartories,
et al., C.A. No. B-80-542-CA
Southern District of Texas
Clyde E. Mack, et al. v. Merrell-National Laboratories,
} C.A. No. H-81-361
Eastern District of Wisconsin :
Anne M. Von Paumgartten, et al. v. Merrell-National
Laboratories, C.A. No. 80-C-244