IN RE: Practice of Naturopathy Litigation

- - CaseHYOREN0=284U	DER IA Ne RANEFiled 05/04/15 Page 1 of 10
ON
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION JUDICIAL PANEL ON Ca
MULTIBISTRICT LITIGATION EELED
IN RE PRACTICE OF ) aug -8 87 : . BN S :NATUROPATHY LITIGATION ) DOCKET NO. 25% LTPATRICIA	D. Huw ARD FERN EE
CLERK OF THE PANEL oo
OPINION AND ORDER :
BEFORE JOHN MINOR WISLCOM, CHAIRMAN, AND EDWARD WEINFELD, EDWIN A. fmROBSON, WILLIAM H. BECKER*, JOSEPH S. LORD, III*, STANLEY A. WEIGEL, SR
AND ANDREW A. CAFFREY, JUDGES OF THE PANEL Lo oo
PER CURIAM SE
This litigation consists cf 30 actions, each pending in a
different federal district. Plaintiffs in each action are identical,
PVE oo
and include physicians allegedly qualified to practice naturopathy,
students of naturopathy, persons who either receive or desire to oo
receive treatment from naturopathic physicians, and several physi-
clans' organizations allegedly involved in the development and
prcmotion of naturopathy throughout the United States. Defendants
in each acticn are the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the :
Department of Health, Education and Welfare (ZEW) and its Secretary, :
and the United States of America (collectively referrzsd to herein o
as the federal defendants). - Each action also originally included as
*/ Judges Becker and Lerd took no part in the consideration
cr decisicn of this matter. :
1/ 1a their complaints, plaintiffs define naturopathy as follows:
"Naturcpathv is a serarate and distinct healing art,
science and philosophy of medicine, that is, the art,
science and philosophy of natural healing, by application
of the laws of nature to the human body Zor its care and
tc craven: disease Dv anv means that will assist the seli-
nealing processes of the Zcdy.'

. . Case MDL No. 284 Docum@nt2 Filed 05/04/15 Page	2 of 10
defendants various states and counties and their boards of pharmacy
2/
® and medicine.
Except for some of the defendants named, the complaints in
each action are identical. In every complaint, plaintiffs challenge
the constitutionality of several unspecified state statutes and
regulations that allegedly restrict, prevent or discriminate
against the practice of naturopathy. Each complaint also
challenges certain federal statutes and regulations concerning
the prescription of various drugs in connection with patient
treatment and the reimbursement for expenses incurred in
caring for individuals covered by Medicare. The plaintiffs
pray for extensive declaratory and injunctive relief including
requests, inter alia, that each court define the practice of .
@ ocororathy establish a field of practice within that definition,
and guarantee the right of certain plaintiffs to practice and
receive naturopathic treatment.
The plaintiffs mcv=2 the Panel for an order pursuant to
28 U.S.C. §1407 transferring all actions to the District of Idaho
for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. All responding
state and local defendants oppose transfer. Should the Panel find
Secticn 1407 proceedings to be appropriate, however, many of these
defendants oppose transfer to the District of Idahec and urce trans-
fer to a more convenient and/or centrally located fcrum. The federal
defendants move the Panel to transfer only the claims against the
federal defendants to the District of Maryland, the District of
Connecticut or a centralized forum other than the District of Idaho.
®
| 2/5ince the Panel hearing on this matter, we have been advised
tnat the state and local defendants have been dismissed from the
South Carolina and Wyoming actions.

. . Case MDL No. 284 Document2 Filed 05/04/15 Page	3 of 10
- 3 =
C We find that these actions involve common questions
of fact and that their transfer under Section 1407 to the
District of Maryland will best serve the convenience of the parties
and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the
‘litigation.
All responding state and county defendants argue that
these actions share no or few questions of fact, and that
plaintiffs have not demonstrated otherwise. The facts discovered
in any action will relate solely to the statutes, regulations,
policy decisions and alleged discrimination of the state and
local defendants involved in that action, these parties contend.
© They maintain that the only commonality among these actions is that |each defendant has allegedly engaged in some form of discrimination.
Because the patterns of regulation of plaintiffs' practice of
naturopathy range from complete prohibition to what plaintiffs
allege are unconstitutionally unreasonable restrictions, if ’
these matters were coordinated or consolidated for pretrial pro-
ceedings, the transferee court would not be faced with one
operative set of facts, but rather would be required to sort
out over thirty regulatory systems that have been developed,
administered and enforced without any coordinated reference to
each other, these parties argue. Therefore, they state,
separate discovery will be required as to each state and local
defendant and the possibility of any duplicative discovery is,
® at best, remote.

. . Case MDL No. 284 Document2 Filed 05/04/15 Page	4 of 10
- 4 -
® Several of these defendants alsc ccntend that the motion
before the Panel is premature. These parties argue that the
complaints in this litigation fail to state a claim for which
relief can be granted and/or that the various federal district
courts before which these actions are pending lack subject
matter jurisdiction. It is maintained that the defendants
should be given an opportunity to test the jurisdiction of the
potential transferor courts and the validity of the complaints
before any Section 1407 transfer is undertaken. Should the
Panel order coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings
now, these parties contend, resolution	of these threshold issues
C would be unduly delayed.
Defendants' arguments that there are a multiplicity of
disparate federal, state and local statutes and regulatory pro-
cedures concerning naturopathy, while undeniably true, simply
do not address the issue of whether these actions involve signifi-
cant common questions of fact. We find it clear that the
basic factual inquiries in this litigation will center not on
how the various jurisdictions define or regulate naturopathy,
but rather upon the fundamental questions of precisely what
naturcovathy is, whether naturovathic treatment is beneficial and
®

. . Case MDL No. 284 Document2 Filed 05/04/15 Page	5 of 10
_ 5 =
® efficacious, what are the valid distinctions, if any, between
naturopathy and the "orthodox" practice of medicine, what
training naturopathic physicians receive, and what are the
valid distinctions, if any, between natural medicines and :
prescription drugs. Transfer under Section 1407 is thus
necessary in order to eliminate duplicative discovery, avoid
the possibility of conflicting pretrial rulings and conserve
judicial effort. ' Any issues unique to a particular action
may be scheduled by the transferee judge to proceed con-
currently with the common pretrial matters. See In re Revublic
National-Realtv Equities Securities Litigation, 382 F. Supp.
@ 1:03, 1406 (3.P..L. 1974).
Nor is transfer under Section 1407 premature because
of defendants' desire to challenge the sufficiency of the
complaints and/or the jurisdiction of the federal courts.
Indeed, presentation of these matters to a single judge will
further the purposes of Section 1407. See In re Molinaro/Catanzaro
Patent Litigation, 380 F. Supp. 794, 795 (J.P.M.L. 1974).
Because these 30 actions are pending throughout the
antire United States, and because no overall focal point of
discoverv has emerged, no district stands out as the most
aporooriate transferee forum. On balance, nowever, we ara
@ ocersuaded that the District of Maryland is the most preferable.

: “ Case MDL No. 284 Document2 Filed 05/04/15 Page	6 of 10
-6-
® Inasmuch as the federal defendants are common to all actions in
this litigation, several relevant documents and witnesses are
located in nearby Washington, D.C. The Panel is reluctant,
however, to transfer multidistrict litigation to a district wherein
none of the constituent actions is pending. In re Air Crash
Disaster Near Papeete, Tahiti, on July 22, 1973, 397 F. Supp.
886, 887 (J.P.M.L. 1975). The District of Maryland is the
closest district to the District of Columbia wherein an action
before us is pending. In addition, several parties anticipate
that this litigation will involve many expert medical and
pharmaceutical witnesses and that those witnesses are likely to be
found at the larger pharmaceutical companies and major medical
® schools in the East.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the actions listed on the
following Schedule A and pending in districts other than the
District of Maryland be, and the same hereby are, transferred
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407 to the District of Maryland and,
with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Joseph
H. Young for coordinated cr consclidated pretrial proceedings
with the action already pending there and listed on Schedule A.
@

. - Case MDL No. 284 Document 2 Filed 05/04/15 Page 7 of 10
MDL-284 -- IN RE THE PRACTICE OF NATUROPATHY LITIGATION
® SCHEDULE A
DISTRICT OF ALASKA
Idaho Association of Naturopathic Physicians, Inc.,
et al. Vv. United states rood and Drug Administration,
et al., C.A. No. A76-237-Civ
DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Idaho Association of Naturopathic Physicians, Inc., :
et al. Vv. United States rood and Drug Administration,
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Idaho Association	of Naturopathic Physicians, Inc.,
et al. v. United States Food and Drug Administration,
: DISTRICT OF COLORADO
® Idaho Association of Naturopathic Physicians, Inc.,et al. v. Unites States Food and Drug Administration,	== 2-. vo HD TES states Food and Urug administration
et al., C.A. No. 76-M-3895
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT |
Idaho Association of Naturopathic Physicians, Inc.,
. et al., v. United States Food and Drug Administration,
et al., C.A. No. H/6/365
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
: Idaho Association of Naturopathic Physicians, Inc.,
et al. v. United States Food and Drug Administration,
et al., C.A. No. 76-6402-Civ-CA
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
Idaho Association of Naturopathic Physicians, Inc.,
et al. v. United States Food and Drug Administration
et al., C.A. No.CvV4d76-235
DISTRICT OF HAWAII
Idaho Association of Naturopathic Physicians, Inc.,
[) et al. v. United States Food and Drug Administration,) et al., C.A. No. 76-0330

. « Case MDL No. 284 Document2 Filed 05/04/15 Page	8 of 10
MDI,-284 -- p. 2 SCHEDULE A
DISTRICT OF IDAHO
Idaho Association of Naturopathic Physicians, Inc.,
et al. v. United States Food and Drug Administration,
et al., C.A. No. Civ 1-76-176
DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
Idaho Association of Naturopathic Physicians, Inc.,
et al. v. United States Food and Drug Administration,
et al., C.A. No. ¥/6-1375
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
Idaho Association of Naturopathic Physicians, Inc.,
et al. v. United States Food and Drug Administration,
et al., C.A. No. 76-3284-M
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
Idaho Association of Naturopathic Physicians, Inc.,
® et al. v. United States Food and Drug Administration,et al., C.A. No. 671853
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Idaho Association of Naturopathic Physicians, Inc.,
et al. v. United States Food and Drug Administraticn,
et al., C.A. No. Civ 3=-76=-342
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
Idaho Association of Naturopathic Physicians, Inc.,
et al. v. United States Food and Drug Administration,
et al., C.A. No. J76-265 (R)
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
Idaho Association of Naturopathic Physicians, Inc.,
et al. v. United States Food and Drug Administration,
et al., C.A. No. 1-77-2003
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
Idaho Association of Naturopathic Physicians, Inc.
® et al. V. United States Food and Drug Administration,	- et al., C.A. NO. CA3-/6-1325-F

- - Case MDL No. 284 Document2 Filed 05/04/15 Page	9 of 10
MDL-284 -- p. 3 SCHEDULE A
DISTRICT OF UTAE
os Idaho Association of Naturopathic Physicians, Inc.,
et al. Vv. United States food and Drug Administration,
et al., C.A. No. C-76-289
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
Idaho Association of Naturopathic Physicians, Inc.,
et al. Vv. United States Food and Drug Administration,
et al., C.A. No. C76=-627V
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
Idaho Association of Naturopathic Physicians, Inc.,
et al. v. United States Food and Drug Administration,
et al., C.A. No. 716-C—647
DISTRICT OF WYOMING
Idaho Association of Naturopathic Physicians, Inc.,
et al. v. United States Food and Drug Administration,
® et al., C.A. No. c/6-168
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
Idaho Associaition of Naturopathic Physicians, Inc.,
et al. v. United States Food and Drug Administration,
et al., C.A. No. 76C3323
DISTRICT OF KANSAS
Idaho Association of Naturopathic Physicians, Inc.,
et al. v. United States Food and Drug Administration
et al., C.A. No. 76=-143-C5
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
Idaho Association of Naturopathic Physicians, Inc.,
et al. Vv. United States rood and Drug Administration,
et al., C.A. No. /6CV562-W-1
DISTRICT OF MONTANA
Idaho Association of Naturopathic Physicians, Inc.,
et al. Vv. United States Food and Drug Administraticn,
® et al., C.A. No. CV7/6-115-BLG

. « Case MDL No. 284 Document2 Filed 05/04/15 Page 10 of 10
MDL-284 -- p. 4 SCHEDULE A
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
Idaho Association of Naturopathic Physicians, Inc.,
et al. Vv. United States rood and Drug Administration,
et al., C.A. No. LV=76-166-RDG
SOUTEERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Idaho Association of Naturopathic Physicians, Inc.,
et al. v. United States Food and Drug Administration,
et al., C.A. No. 76 Civ 406l
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
Idaho Association of Naturopathic Physicians, Inc.,
et al. v. United States Food and Drug Administration,
et al., C.A. No. A-C-76-145
DISTRICT OF OREGON
Idaho Association of Naturopathic Physicians, Inc.,
et al. v. United States Food and Drug Administration,
® et al., C.A. No. 76-788MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Idaho Association of Naturopathic Physicians, Inc.,
et al. v. United States Food ané Drug Administration,
et al., C.A. No. Civ 76-1168
DISTRICT OF SCUTH CAROLINA
Idaho Association of Naturopathic Physicians, Inc.,
et al. v. United States Food and Drug Administration,
et al., C.A. No. 76-1674