Legal Opinion
In Re Consolidated Parlodel Litigation
District Court, D. New Jersey
Decided July 27, 1998No. Civil Action 95-1935PublishedCited by 34 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORLOFSKY, District Judge.
These fourteen products liability actions were filed by sixteen women, and some of their husbands, against a New Jersey pharmaceutical company. The cases were consolidated for the limited purposes of discovery but, in an Opinion and Order filed on February 6, 1998, I denied Plaintiffs’ motion to consolidate these cases for trial. I also denied Plaintiffs’ motion to apply New Jersey law to each case. In the wake of those decisions, the defendant has moved to transfer each of these cases to the Plaintiffs “home” district where the Plaintiff resides, where the Plaintiff…
2Cases cited39 opinions
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Gulf Oil Corp. v. GilbertSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
- Piper Aircraft Co. v. ReynoSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- General Electric Co. v. JoinerSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
- Stewart Organization, Inc. v. Ricoh Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1988
34 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by34 opinions
- Coppola v. Ferrellgas, Inc.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2008
- Peikin v. Kimmel & Silverman, P.C.District Court, D. New Jersey · 2008
- Rubio v. Monsanto Co.District Court, C.D. California · 2016
- Liggett Group Inc. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.District Court, D. New Jersey · 2000
- Santi v. National Business Records Management, LLCDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 2010
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.