Legal Opinion

In re Mirena IUS Levonorgestrel-Related Products Liability Litigation

United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

Decided August 12, 2014No. MDL No. 2559PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

ORDER DENYING TRANSFER

JOHN G. HEYBURN II, Chairman.

Before the Panel:* Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, plaintiffs in all actions move to centralize this litigation in the Middle District of Tennessee or, alternatively, the Northern District of Alabama or the Western District of Kentucky. The litigation consists of nine actions pending in six districts, as listed on Schedule A.1 Defendant Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Bayer”) opposes centralization and, in the alternative, requests the Southern District of New York.

Some characteristics of this litigation suggest that it would benefit…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. In re Fresh Dairy Products Antitrust LitigationUnited States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation · 2012
  2. In re Mirena IUD Products Liability LitigationUnited States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation · 2013
  3. In re Intuitive Surgical, Inc., Da Vinci Robotic Surgical System Products Liability LitigationUnited States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation · 2012
  4. In Re Chilean Nitrate Products Liability Lit.United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation · 2011

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. In re Mirena IUS Levonorgestrel-Related Products Liability LitigationUnited States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation · 2017

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

Powered by the Exa API