SCHMIDT
v.
PFIZER
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The 27 Depo-Provera products liability actions pending in eight districts are transferred to the Northern District of Florida and assigned to Judge M. Casey Rodgers for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.
[1] Under 28 U.S.C. …
[2] A district court is an appropriate transferee forum for multidistrict litigation when it has existing related actions pending, possesses necessary judicial resources and…
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The Northern District of Florida is an appropriate transferee district for this litigation. Two related actions are pending in this district, which offers the necessary judicial resources and expertise to manage this nationwide litigation in an efficient and convenient manner.”
Establishes the Panel's reasoning for selecting the Northern District of Florida as the transferee forum based on existing related actions and available judicial resources.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMultiple groups of plaintiffs filed motions under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to centralize 27 products liability actions alleging injuries from Depo-Provera (De…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Failure To Warn cases and more on FLexlaw
FEB? 25 paren OY
VASE [...] ING, o44U LOCUTMEML Filed Uc4iUfizo Page Plaintiff in at least one action (Edgerton) alleges that she took both Depo-Provera and Depo- SubQ Provera 104, though she attributes her injury only to the former medication. Plaintiffs generally allege that Depo-SubQ Provera 104 is a safer alternative to Depo-Provera, and it is unclear at this point whether there will be any actions alleging injury from Depo-SubQ Provera 104. Any such action, however, will share significant factual questions with the Depo-Provera actions.
Vase MUL INO, oLGU) Vocumentl20 Filed O2zi0fizo Page 3ors
additionally asks the Panel to direct that Prasco not be named as a defendant where the plaintiff's alleged product use ended before November 2020.° We deny this request, as it is a merits question more appropriately directed to the transferee court. The Northern District of Florida is an appropriate transferee district for this litigation. Two related actions are pending in this district, which offers the necessary judicial resources and expertise to manage this nationwide litigation in an efficient and convenient manner. Judge M. Casey Rodgers, to whom we assign this MDL, is an able jurist with extensive and exceptional experience presiding over large products liability MDLs. We are confident that she will steer this litigation on a prudent and expeditious course. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the actions listed on Schedule A are transferred to the Northern District of Florida and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable M. Casey Rodgers for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.
PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION __.
Karen ; Caldwell Chair Nathaniel M. Gorton David C. Norton Roger T. Benitez Dale A. Kimball Madeline Cox Arleo
Prasco acquired the exclusive license to distribute the authorized generic version of Depo-Provera (i.e., the “generic” version manufactured by the brand-name manufacturer, Pfizer) in November 2020, following an FTC-mandated divestiture of Pfizer’s Greenstone subsidiary, which had distributed the authorized generic version up to that point. Prasco contends that many of the complaints in which it is named as a defendant involve Depo-Provera use that ended before November 2020.
MADE [...] SAT MUEUMINICII LA OU FAYE 4
IN RE: DEPO-PROVERA (DEPOT MEDROXYPROGESTERONE ACETATE) PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION MDL No. 3140
SCHEDULE A
Central District of California JONES v. PFIZER INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:24-09195 MORROW v. PFIZER INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:24-10060 JOSEPH v. PFIZER INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:24-10173 FAZIO v. PFIZER INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 5:24-02285 DEVORAK v. PFIZER INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 5:24-02349 WHITE v. PFIZER INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 5:24-02379 WILSON v. PFIZER INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 5:24-02524 WILLIAMS, ET AL. v. PFIZER INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 8:24-02457 Eastern District of California VALENCIA v. PFIZER INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:24-01346 ROMINE v. PFIZER INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:24-01446 MEDINA v. PFIZER INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:24-01475 LIGHT v. PFIZER INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:24-03254 Northern District of California SCHMIDT v. PFIZER INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:24-06875 LAWSON v. PFIZER INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:24-07303 NGUYEN v. PFIZER INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:24-07699 VALERA-ARCEO, ET AL. v. PFIZER INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:24-08312 FRANZI v. PFIZER INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:24-08372 YOUNG v. PFIZER INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:24-08679 GRUBENSKY v. PFIZER INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 4:24~-08746 GOODLETT, ET AL. v. PFIZER INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 4:24-08223 Southern District of California EDGERTON v. PFIZER INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:24-02167
Vdst MUL INO, OL4U VOCUMENTLZU FIEA UcziUfiza Fage 3 OTs = AS, =
Southern District of Indiana NOBLE, ET AL. v. PFIZER INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:24-01831 BEAVERS, ET AL. v. PFIZER INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:24-02105 SHIRLEY v. PFIZER INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:24-00565 District of Massachusetts WRIGHT, ET AL. v. PFIZER INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:24-30145 Western District of Missouri ROWLAND v. PFIZER INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 6:24-03316 District of Nevada
STEPHENS-SMITH, ET AL. v. PFIZER INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:24-02123