Grubensky

Grubensky v. Pfizer Inc.

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaFebruary 7, 20254:24-cv-08746California1,510 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

WAoe WILYL INU, OLEaU VOCUTTICHIL FHEO UciUfiZo rage 1 Olo

CERTIFIED A TRUE COPY

Jessica J. Lyublanovits, Clerk of Cot UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEby: Deounes apy LA on Deputy Cle

MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

IN RE: DEPO-PROVERA

(DEPOT MEDROXYPROGESTERONE ACETATE) PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION MDL No. 3140

TRANSFER ORDER

Before the Panel:* Two groups of plaintiffs! have filed motions under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to centralize this litigation in the Northern District of California or the Central District of California. This litigation consists of 27 actions pending in eight districts, as listed on Schedule A.” In addition, the parties have informed the Panel of related actions pending in fifteen districts.? All responding plaintiffs support centralization. Most of these plaintiffs either support or do not oppose centralization in the Northern District of California. Plaintiffs in four of these actions (all pending in the Southern District of Indiana) condition their non-opposition to a Northern District of California transferee forum on discovery and depositions of plaintiffs taking place in…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.