Legal Opinion

In re Proton-Pump Inhibitor Products Liability Litigation (No. II)

United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

Decided August 2, 2017No. MDL No. 2789PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

TRANSFER ORDER

SARAH S. VANCE, Chair

Before the Panel:* Plaintiffs in 24 actions pending in the District of New Jersey move to centralize this litigation in that district, or, in the alternative, the Southern District of Illinois. The litigation consists of the 161 actions listed on the attached Schedule A. The Panel has been informed of 34 additional federal actions involving related issues.1

All responding plaintiffs support centralization, but certain plaintiffs argue, in the first instance, for the Southern District of Illinois. Defendants’ positions on centralization vary. Defendants…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. In re Androgel Products Liability LitigationUnited States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation · 2014
  2. In re Plavix Marketing, Sales Practices & Products Liability LitigationUnited States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation · 2013
  3. In re Lipitor (Atorvastatin Calcium) Marketing, Salespractices & Products Liability Litigation (No. II)United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation · 2014

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Jones v. Novo Nordisk A/SDistrict Court, D. Idaho · 2024
  2. Jones v. Novo Nordisk A/SDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2024

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API