Legal Opinion

In re Lipitor (Atorvastatin Calcium) Marketing, Sales Practices & Products Liability Litigation

United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

Decided August 8, 2013No. MDL No. 2459PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ORDER DENYING TRANSFER

JOHN G. HEYBURN II, Chairman.

Before the Panel: Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, plaintiffs in three actions pending in the District of South Carolina move to centralize this litigation in that district. The litigation encompasses the five actions listed on Schedule A.1

All responding plaintiffs support centralization, but there is some disagreement as to an appropriate transferee district. Plaintiff in the Eastern District of Virginia constituent action supports centralization in the District of South Carolina, as do plaintiffs in three potential tag-along actions pending,…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. In re Intuitive Surgical, Inc., Da Vinci Robotic Surgical System Products Liability LitigationUnited States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation · 2012
  2. In re Propecia (Finasteride) Products Liability LitigationUnited States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation · 2012

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. In re Lipitor (Atorvastatin Calcium) Marketing, Salespractices & Products Liability Litigation (No. II)United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation · 2014
  2. In re 3M Co. Lava Ultimate Products Liability LitigationUnited States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation · 2016
  3. In re Qualitest Birth Control Products Liability LitigationUnited States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation · 2014
  4. Dunham v. Covidien LPDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2020
  5. In re Proton-Pump Inhibitor Products Liability LitigationUnited States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation · 2017

3 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