IN RE: Luminex International, Inc., Products Liability Litigation

Case MDL No. 287 Document 2 Filed 05/05/15 0” J of 4 |BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL JUDICIA:
ON MULTIDIS	TRI ANEL On I ESSA
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION FIL = Tiok en Cow	Lo—
IN RE LUMINEX INTERNATIONAL, INC. ) p ST :
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION ) RETHNG », 287 Co ETcer Tha | ESOPINION AND ORDER
-
BEFORE JOHN MINOR WISDOM, CHAIRMAN, AND EDWARD WEINFELD,
EDWIN A. ROBSON, WILLIAM H. BECKER*, JOSEPH S. LORD, III*,
STANLEY A. WEIGEL, AND ANDREW A. CAFFREY, JUDGES OF THE Co Le
PANEL. EE UR	Ca : E
PER CURIAM
This litigation consists of three actions pending in two
federal districts -- two in the District of Montana and one in
the Western District of Louisiana. The defendant in each action : :
is Luminex International, Inc., a company which manufactures |
lenses. Admiral Insurance Co., Luminex's liability insurer,
is also a defendant in the Louisiana action. The plaintiff Gas,
in each of the three actions purchased an intraocular lens ! Co
which was manufactured by Luminex and had it implanted in his
or her eye following the surgical removal of a cataract. |
Thereafter, each plaintiff suffered an infection in the eye oo
operated on. Plaintiff in each Montana action alleges that :
his or her eye infection resulted in total and permanent
loss of vision in the affected eye. Plaintiff in the
Louisiana action alleges that her eye infection resulted in
* Judges Becker and Lord took no part in the consideration
or decision of this matter.

. . Case MDL No. 287 Docuineht? Filed 05/05/15 Page 2 of 4
the ultimate removal of the affected eye. The infections
( allegedly were caused by a fungus in the solution in which
each lens was contained and/or a fungus in the lens itself.
The three lenses and the solution in which each lens was
contained were purportedly manufactured as part of Luminex
Lot No. 128. The Montana plaintiffs charge Luminex with
negligence in marketing Lot 128 in a contaminated condition
and in failing to test Lot 128 adequately for contamination.
Additional counts for relief in the Montana actions are based
on the principles of strict liability, breach of express and
implied warranties, and misrepresentation of the condition of
Lot 128 when sold. Plaintiff in the Louisiana action alleges
that Luminex was negligent in designing, manufacturing and/or
marketing defective intraocular products, in failing to test
o the products adequately and/or in failing adequately to warn
of the dangers involved in using the products.
Luminex moves the Panel for transfer of the three
actions to the Central District of California pursuant to
28 U.S.C. §1407 for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings. Plaintiffs in the three actions oppose trans-
fer. We find that although these actions may share some
common questions of fact, transfer would not necessarily
serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses or pro-
mote the just and efficient conduct of the actions.
Accordingly, we deny transfer.
Defendant Luminex contends, in favor of transfer, that
@ the three actions involve identical questions of fact concern-
) ing the condition of Lot 128 when it was marketed. Luminex

. . Case MDL No. 287 Documedt2 Filed 05/05/15 Page	3 of 4
maintains that transfer	of these actions to a single district for
® coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings will avoid
duplicative discovery relating to Lot 128 and will otherwise
prevent inconsistent pretrial proceedings.
Although these three actions may share some questions of
fact relating to the condition of Lot 128 and te other aspects of
Luminex's manufacturing process, we are not persuaded that
these factual questions are complex enough to justify trans-
fer under Section 1407. See In re Scotch Whiskey, 299 F. Supp.
543, 544 (J.P.M.L. 1969). Moreover, as movant concedes, these
actions involve significant individual factual questions on the
issue of liability concerning the condition of the particular
lens used by each plaintiff, Transcript at 5-6.
In addition, pretrial proceedings in the action pending
o in the Western District of Louisiana are well advanced, and
it appears that the action will be ready for trial soon. The
present posture of that action is an additional reason why
transfer of the actions before us would neither serve the
convenience of the parties and witnesses nor promote the
just and efficient conduct of the actions. See In re Asbestos
and Asbestos Insulation Material Products Liability Litigation,
_ F.Supp. __, __ (J.P.M.L., filed April 7, 1977); In re
Braniff Airways, Inc. Employment Practices Litigation, 411 F.
Supp. 798, 800 (J.P.M.L. 1976).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that transfer of the actions listed
on the following Schedule A be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.
®

“= Case MDL No. 287 Document2 Filed 05/05/15 Page	4 of 4
® SCHEDULE ADOCKET NO. 287
DISTRICT OF MONTANA
Ellen Jones v. Luminex International, Inc. Civil Action No.
76-67-BLG
John Herzog v. Luminex International, Inc. Civil Action No.
76-68-BLG
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
Clara E. Shaddix v. Luminex International, Civil Action No.
Inc. CI1760647