Legal Opinion

In re Biomet M2a Magnum Hip Implant Products Liability Litigation

United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

Decided October 2, 2012No. MDL No. 2391PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

TRANSFER ORDER

JOHN G. HEYBURN II, Chairman.

Before the Panel: Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, plaintiffs in a Northern District of California action (Ching) and a District of Colorado action (Winningham) move for centralized pretrial proceedings in the Northern District of California or the Southern District of New York. Plaintiffs’ motion encompasses eight actions1 pending in six districts, as listed on Schedule A. The cases in this litigation primarily involve alleged defects in Biomet’s M2a Magnum system of hip implant products.2 Plaintiffs’ claims focus upon the metal-on-metal design of the…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. In Re Kauffman Mutual Fund ActionsUnited States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation · 1972

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Lori Nicholson v. Biomet, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2022
  2. Fitzsimmons v. Biomet OrthopedicsDistrict Court, M.D. Florida · 2020
  3. Fitzsimmons v. Biomet OrthopedicsDistrict Court, M.D. Florida · 2021
  4. HARDISON v. BIOMET INCDistrict Court, M.D. Georgia · 2020
  5. Harbold v. Biomet Orthopedics LLCDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 2019

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API