Huitt

Huitt v. TEVA Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaJanuary 5, 20212:20-cv-00954California2,044 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL

on

MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

IN RE: PARAGARD IUD PRODUCTS MDL No. 2974

LIABILITY LITIGATION

TRANSFER ORDER

Before the Panel: Plaintiff in an action pending in the Central District of California (Traylor) moves under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to centralize this litigation in that district, or, in the alternative, the Northern District of Georgia, the Western District of Missouri, or the Eastern District of Louisiana. The litigation consists of 55 actions pending in 31 districts as listed on the attached Schedule A. The Panel has been notified of more than 25 potentially-related actions.1 Plaintiff in one of the actions pending in the Northern District of Georgia (Rodriguez) supports centralization in the Central District of California, or, in the alternative, the Northern District of Georgia. Defendants Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Teva Women’s Health, Inc., Teva Women’s Health, LLC, Teva Branded Pharmaceutical Products R&D, Inc., The Cooper Companies, Inc., and CooperSurgical, Inc., submitted a joint response in opposition to centralization. If an MDL is created over their objections, defendants argue for…

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.