Legal Opinion
In re California Wine Inorganic Arsenic Levels Products Liability Litigation
United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
Decided June 5, 2015No. MDL No. 2632PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER DENYING TRANSFER
MARJORIE O. RENDELL, Acting Chair.
Before the Panel:* Plaintiff in one action in the Middle District of Louisiana moves under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to centralize this litigation in that district. This litigation currently consists of two actions pending in two districts, as listed on Schedule A. The actions allege that 28 producers and distributors of California wines have engaged in marketing and sales practices in violation of state laws by allegedly selling wines containing dangerous levels of inorganic arsenic without disclosing the arsenic levels or the health risks…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- In Re Eli Lilly & Co.(cephalexin Monohydrate)United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation · 1978
- In Re Transocean Ltd. Securities LitigationUnited States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation · 2010
- In Re CVS Caremark Corp. Wage & Hour Employment Practices LitigationUnited States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation · 2010
- In re Crest Sensitivity Treatment & Protection Toothpaste Marketing & Sales Practices LitigationUnited States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation · 2012
- In re Intuitive Surgical, Inc., Da Vinci Robotic Surgical System Products Liability LitigationUnited States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation · 2012
3Cited by3 opinions
- Black Diamond Consulting Group LLC v. Moolex LLCDistrict Court, D. Connecticut · 2021
- In re Emergency Helicopter Air Ambulance Rate LitigationUnited States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation · 2017
- In re Express Scripts Holding Co. Securities, Derivative & Employee Retirement Income Security Act (Erisa) LitigationUnited States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation · 2017