View
222
Download
4
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
Hearing Session Order&
Amendments
January 25, 2018
UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANELon
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
IN RE: CENTURYLINK RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMER BILLING DISPUTES LITIGATION
Inter-Marketing Group, USA, Inc. v. Centurylink, Inc., et al., )W.D. Louisiana, C.A. No. 3:17-01648 ) MDL No. 2795(Formerly S.D. New York, C.A. No. 1:17-08234) )
FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE HEARING SESSION ORDERAND ATTACHED SCHEDULE FILED DECEMBER 15, 2017
AND ORDER AMENDING CONDITIONAL TRANSFER ORDER
This action (Inter-Marketing Group, USA, Inc.,), bearing the Southern District of New Yorkcivil action number of 1:17-08234, was included on the Panel’s conditional transfer order (“CTO-3")filed on November 6, 2017. Plaintiff in Inter-Marketing Group, USA, Inc., filed a notice ofopposition to the transfer. Plaintiff later filed a motion and brief to vacate the CTO. The matter isscheduled to be heard at the Panel's January 25, 2018, hearing in Miami, Florida.
The Panel has now been advised that this action was transferred from the Southern Districtof New York to the Western District of Louisiana pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), by the HonorableLewis A. Kaplan in an order filed on December 13, 2017. Coincident to this transfer, Inter-Marketing Group, USA, Inc., was assigned a new Western District of Louisiana civil action numberof 3:17-01648.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Panel’s conditional transfer order designated as “CTO-3" filed on November 6, 2017, is AMENDED to reflect the new Western District of Louisianacivil action number of 3:17-01648.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all documents filed with the Panel's CM/ECF system underC.A. No. 1:17-08234 will be re-designated as C.A. No. 3:17-01648.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Hearing Order and Schedule filed on December 15,2017, is likewise amended to reflect the new Western District of Louisiana civil action number of3:17-01648.
FOR THE PANEL:
Jeffery N. Lüthi Clerk of the Panel
Case MDL No. 2795 Document 100 Filed 01/02/18 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANELon
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
NOTICE OF HEARING SESSION
Pursuant to the order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation filed today,notice is hereby given that a hearing session has been scheduled to consider various mattersunder 28 U.S.C. § 1407.
DATE OF HEARING SESSION: January 25, 2018
LOCATION OF HEARING SESSION: Wilkie D. Ferguson, Jr. U.S. Courthouse Ceremonial Courtroom 13-3, 13th Floor 400 North Miami Avenue Miami, Florida 33128
TIME OF HEARING SESSION: In those matters designated for oral argument, counselpresenting oral argument must be present at 8:00 a.m. in order for the Panel to allocate theamount of time for oral argument. Oral argument will commence at 9:30 a.m.
SCHEDULED MATTERS: Matters scheduled for consideration at this hearing session are listed on the enclosed Hearing Session Order and Schedule of Matters for Hearing Session.
• Section A of this Schedule lists the matters designated for oral argument and includes all actions encompassed by Motion(s) for transfer filed pursuant to Rules 6.1 and 6.2. Any party waiving oral argument pursuant to Rule 11.1(d) need not attend the Hearing Session.
• Section B of this Schedule lists the matters that the Panel has determined to consider without oral argument, pursuant to Rule 11.1(c). Parties and counsel involved in these matters need not attend the Hearing Session.
ORAL ARGUMENT: • The Panel carefully considers the positions advocated in filings with the Panel
when it allocates time to attorneys presenting oral argument. The Panel, therefore,expects attorneys to adhere to those positions including those concerning anappropriate transferee district. Any change in position should be conveyed toPanel staff before the beginning of oral argument. Where an attorney thereafteradvocates a position different from that conveyed to Panel staff, the Panel mayreduce the allotted argument time and decline to hear further from that attorney.
Case MDL No. 2179 Document 1979 Filed 12/15/17 Page 1 of 28
- 2 -
• The Panel expects attorneys presenting oral argument to be prepared to discusswhat steps they have taken to pursue alternatives to centralization including, butnot limited to, engaging in informal coordination of discovery and scheduling, andseeking Section 1404 transfer of one or more of the subject cases.
For those matters listed on Section A of the Schedule, the "Notice of Presentation or Waiver of Oral Argument" must be filed in this office no later than January 8, 2018. The procedures governing Panel oral argument (Panel Rule 11.1) are attached. The Panel strictly adheres to theseprocedures.
FOR THE PANEL:
Jeffery N. LüthiClerk of the Panel
cc: Clerk, United States District for the Southern District of Florida
Case MDL No. 2179 Document 1979 Filed 12/15/17 Page 2 of 28
UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANELon
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
HEARING SESSION ORDER
The Panel issues the following orders in connection with its next hearing session,
IT IS ORDERED that on January 25, 2018, the Panel will convene a hearing session in Miami, Florida, to consider the matters on the attached Schedule under 28 U.S.C. § 1407.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Panel may, on its own initiative, consider transferof any or all of the actions in those matters to any district or districts.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Panel will hear oral argument on the matters listedon Section A of the attached Schedule, unless the parties waive oral argument or unless the Panellater decides to dispense with oral argument pursuant to Panel Rule 11.1(c).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Panel will consider without oral argument thematters listed on Section B of the attached Schedule pursuant to Panel Rule 11.1(c). The Panelreserves the prerogative, on any basis including submissions of parties pursuant to Panel Rule11.1(b), to designate any of those matters for oral argument.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Judicial Panel on MultidistrictLitigation shall direct notice of this hearing session to counsel for all parties involved in thematters on the attached Schedule.
PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
_________________________________ Sarah S. Vance Chair
Marjorie O. Rendell Charles R. Breyer Lewis A. Kaplan Ellen Segal Huvelle
R. David Proctor Catherine D. Perry
Case MDL No. 2179 Document 1979 Filed 12/15/17 Page 3 of 28
SCHEDULE OF MATTERS FOR HEARING SESSIONJanuary 25, 2018 !! Miami, Florida
SECTION AMATTERS DESIGNATED FOR ORAL ARGUMENT
(This schedule contains only those civil actions listed in the Schedule(s) of Actions submitted with the docketedmotion(s) for transfer. See Panel Rules 6.1 and 6.2. In the event these dockets are centralized, other actions of whichthe Panel has been informed may be subject to transfer pursuant to Panel Rule 7.1.)
MDL No. 2809 ! IN RE: ONGLYZA (SAXAGLIPTIN) AND KOMBIGLYZE XR (SAXAGLIPTIN AND METFORMIN) PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION
Motion of plaintiff Carolyn Williams to transfer the following actions to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California:
Middle District of Alabama
VALLENTINE v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:17!00265
Northern District of Alabama
PEOPLES v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 5:17!00101
District of Arizona
SETTLE v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:17!01269
Northern District of California
WILLIAMS, ET AL. v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP, ET AL.,C.A. No. 3:16!07152
MARTIN v. BRISTOL!MYERS COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:17!00661
Northern District of Georgia
REID v. BRISTOL!MEYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:17!01503TURNER v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:17!02782YORK v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:17!02915JOHNSON v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL.,
C.A. No. 1:17!02916
Case MDL No. 2179 Document 1979 Filed 12/15/17 Page 4 of 28
District of Idaho
CHRISTENSEN v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:17!00321
Northern District of Indiana
MILLER v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:17!00330
Southern District of Indiana
COUSINS v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:17!02607
Eastern District of Kentucky
BARNES v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:17!00124TAYLOR, ET AL. v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, INC., ET AL.,
C.A. No. 5:16!00260
Western District of Kentucky
TUCKER v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:17!00268
Eastern District of Louisiana
ROSS v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:17!00443LESTER SPEIGHTS v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL.,
C.A. No. 2:17!07884
Middle District of Louisiana
BROWN v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:17!00039
Western District of Louisiana
LETELL v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB CO., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:17!00553
District of New Jersey
YOUNG v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:17!00347REEVES, ET AL. v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL.,
C.A. No. 3:17!03024
-2-
Case MDL No. 2179 Document 1979 Filed 12/15/17 Page 5 of 28
MITCHELL v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:17!03026
BINNS v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:17!03028TALTON v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:17!03029MCAFEE v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:17!03030GREEN v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:17!03032ISHMAN v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:17!03033ATKINS, SR. v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL.,
C.A. No. 3:17!03034DAY v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:17!03035ASENCIO v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:17!03036SECHLER, ET AL. v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL.,
C.A. No. 3:17!03037
Eastern District of New York
CORTINA v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:17!03912
Middle District of North Carolina
HOLLAND v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:17!00710
Southern District of Ohio
CARPENTER v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:17!00262
Eastern District of Oklahoma
HULBERT v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 6:17!00327
District of South Carolina
DUBOSE v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 4:17!01695
Eastern District of Tennessee
CAMPBELL v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:17!00219
-3-
Case MDL No. 2179 Document 1979 Filed 12/15/17 Page 6 of 28
Middle District of Tennessee
WILCOX v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:17!01202
Eastern District of Texas
WARE v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:17!00111
Northern District of Texas
BOLLER v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 4:17!00050
Southern District of Texas
DAVILA v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:17!00145CHESTER v. BRISTOL!MEYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL.,
C.A. No. 4:17!00316
MDL No. 2810 ! IN RE: SIX FLAGS FAIR AND ACCURATE CREDIT TRANSACTIONS ACT (FACTA) LITIGATION
Motion of defendants Six Flags Entertainment Corporation, Great America LLC, d/b/aSix Flags Great America and Six Flags Hurricane Harbor, and Magic Mountain LLC to transferthe following actions to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois:
Central District of California
MIRANDA, ET AL. v. MAGIC MOUNTAIN LLC, C.A. No. 2:17!07483
Northern District of Georgia
BAILEY v. SIX FLAGS ENTERTAINMENT CORP., C.A. No. 1:17!03336
Northern District of Illinois
SOTO, ET AL. v. GREAT AMERICA LLC, C.A. No. 1:17!06902
-4-
Case MDL No. 2179 Document 1979 Filed 12/15/17 Page 7 of 28
MDL No. 2811 ! IN RE: DOMETIC CORPORATION GAS ABSORPTION REFRIGERATOR PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION
Motion of plaintiffs Catherine Papasan, et al., to transfer the following actions to theUnited States District Court for the Northern District of California:
Central District of California
ZIMMER, ET AL. v. DOMETIC CORPORATION, C.A. No. 2:17!06913
Northern District of California
PAPASAN, ET AL. v. DOMETIC CORPORATION, C.A. No. 4:16!02117
Southern District of Florida
VARNER, ET AL. v. DOMETIC CORPORATION, C.A. No. 1:16!22482ZUCCONI, ET AL. v. DOMETIC CORPORATION, C.A. No. 1:17!23197
MDL No. 2812 ! IN RE: CUSTOMIZED PROMOTIONAL PRODUCTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION
Motion of plaintiff Laura Braley to transfer the following actions to the United StatesDistrict Court for the Southern District of Texas:
District of Oregon
KJESSLER v. ZAAPPAAZ, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:17!01361
Southern District of Texas
BRALEY v. AHMED, ET AL., C.A. No. 4:17!03064
-5-
Case MDL No. 2179 Document 1979 Filed 12/15/17 Page 8 of 28
MDL No. 2813 ! IN RE: DENTAL SUPPLIES AND EQUIPMENT ANTITRUST LITIGATION
Motion of defendants Benco Dental Supply Company and Patterson Companies, Inc., totransfer the following actions to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of NewYork:
Eastern District of New York
COMFORT CARE FAMILY DENTAL, P.C., ET AL. v. HENRY SCHEIN, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:16!00282
ROBERT W. GRODNER, DDS v. PATTERSON COMPANIES, INC., ET AL.,C.A. No. 1:16!00345
BAUER DENTAL ARTS v. HENRY SCHEIN, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:16!00355DR. ROBERT CORWIN, DDS v. BENCO DENTAL SUPPLY CO., ET AL.,
C.A. No. 1:16!00442KEITH SCHWARTZ, D.M.D., P.A. v. BENCO DENTAL SUPPLY CO., ET AL.,
C.A. No. 1:16!00443DR. STEPHEN M. GRUSSMARK, DDS v. BENCO DENTAL SUPPLY CO., ET AL.,
C.A. No. 1:16!00479DRESNIN v. PATTERSON COMPANIES, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:16!00497HOWARD M. MAY, DDS, PC v. PATTERSON COMPANIES, INC., ET AL.,
C.A. No. 1:16!00548BEMUS POINT DENTAL, LLC v. PATTERSON COMPANIES, INC., ET AL.,
C.A. No. 1:16!00560KOTTEMANN ORTHODONTICS, P.L.L.C. v. BENCO DENTAL SUPPLY CO.,
ET AL., C.A. No. 1:16!00576NAGHMEH YADEGAR, D.D.S., INC. v. PATTERSON COMPANIES, INC.,
ET AL., C.A. No. 1:16!00591EVOLUTION DENTAL SCIENCE, LLC v. PATTERSON COMPANIES, INC.,
ET AL., C.A. No. 1:16!00596NELSON v. PATTERSON COMPANIES, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:16!00609PECK v. PATTERSON COMPANIES, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:16!00616PETER BENCE, DMD, P.A. v. PATTERSON COMPANIES, INC., ET AL.,
C.A. No. 1:16!00631KANELLOS & KOTIS v. PATTERSON COMPANIES, INC., ET AL.,
C.A. No. 1:16!00657OMID FARAHMAND DMD, INC. v. PATTERSON COMPANIES, INC., ET AL.,
C.A. No. 1:16!00661PJCC DENTAL PC v. HENRY SCHEIN, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:16!00662WEST LA DENTAL HEALTH CARE CENTER v. PATTERSON COMPANIES,
INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:16!00666
-6-
Case MDL No. 2179 Document 1979 Filed 12/15/17 Page 9 of 28
ANTHONY J. PEPPY DDS & SAMUEL J. PEPPY JR., DDS PC v. BENCO DENTALSUPPLY COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:16!00691
SHAYSTEHFAR v. PATTERSON COMPANIES, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:16!00692IN RE DENTAL SUPPLIES ANTITRUST LITIGATION, C.A. No. 1:16!00696RITTENHOUSE SMILES, P.C. v. PATTERSON COMPANIES, INC., ET AL.,
C.A. No. 1:16!00762THOMAS CASPERS, D.D.S., P.S., ET AL. v. PATTERSON COMPANIES, INC.,
ET AL., C.A. No. 1:16!00765WHITE v. PATTERSON COMPANIES, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:16!00945GREENBERG v. PATTERSON COMPANIES, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:16!01280CORNERSTONE DENTISTRY, P.C. v. PATTERSON COMPANIES, INC., ET AL.,
C.A. No. 1:16!01333SOURCEONE DENTAL, INC. v. PATTERSON COMPANIES, INC., ET AL.,
C.A. No. 2:15!05440BERMUDEZ v. PATTERSON COMPANIES, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:16!00570INDIANOLA FAMILY DENTISTRY, P.L.C. v. PATTERSON COMPANIES, INC.,
ET AL., C.A. No. 2:16!00658STYGER, DDS v. BENCO DENTAL SUPPLY CO., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:16!00712DENNIS M. WINTER, D.D.S., P.C., ET AL. v. PATTERSON COMPANIES, INC.,
ET AL., C.A. No. 2:16!00751JOHNNIDIS v. BENCO DENTAL SUPPLY CO., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:16!00906WOLGIN v. BENCO DENTAL SUPPLY CO., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:16!01020SCOTT T. OZAKI DDS INC. v. HENRY SCHEIN, INC., ET AL.,
C.A. No. 2:16!01377IQ DENTAL SUPPLY, INC. v. HENRY SCHEIN, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:17!04834
Eastern District of Texas
ARCHER AND WHITE SALES, INC. v. HENRY SCHEIN, INC., ET AL.,C.A. No. 2:12!00572
MDL No. 2814 ! IN RE: FORD MOTOR CO. DPS6 POWERSHIFT TRANSMISSION PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION
Motion of defendant Ford Motor Company to transfer the following actions to the UnitedStates District Court for the Central District of California:
Central District of California
HIBDON v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:17!06355ALONSO v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, C.A. No. 2:17!06622FORT v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, C.A. No. 2:17!06631BAGWELL v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, C.A. No. 2:17!06632
-7-
Case MDL No. 2179 Document 1979 Filed 12/15/17 Page 10 of 28
BARRALES v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, C.A. No. 2:17!06638GIBSON v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:17!06644HERMOSILLO v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, C.A. No. 2:17!06651MAGANA, ET AL. v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:17!06653MEJIA v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:17!06654PEDANTE v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:17!06656RULE v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:17!07204PADILLA v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:17!07236HOGGE v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:17!07256GOMEZ v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, C.A. No. 2:17!07262CRESPO v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:17!07297HIATT v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, C.A. No. 2:17!07321TRUJILLO, ET AL. v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, C.A. No. 2:17!07322ALTAMIRANO!TORRES v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL.,
C.A. No. 2:17!07338ALTIKRITI, ET AL. v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:17!07369DOBIAS v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:17!07370CASTANEDA v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:17!07416SULLIVAN v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:17!07497EMHARDT v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:17!07533MOBLEY v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:17!07554WRIGHT, ET AL. v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 5:17!01982PAPAMICHAEL v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 5:17!01986RODRIGUEZ, ET AL. v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 5:17!02007PADILLA, ET AL. v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 5:17!02015WEST v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 5:17!02018BERRY, ET AL. v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 5:17!02034HENRY, ET AL. v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 5:17!02036PEREZ, ET AL. v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 5:17!02042KEATING v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 5:17!02044HERNANDEZ, ET AL. v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 5:17!02045MCGINNIS v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 5:17!02047
Eastern District of California
ZIMMERSCHIED, ET AL. v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, C.A. No. 1:17!01317SORENSON, ET AL. v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, C.A. No. 2:17!01987WILLIAMS v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, C.A. No. 2:17!02006MALAGON v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, C.A. No. 2:17!02051VILLALOVOS v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, C.A. No. 2:17!02053BARRACK v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, C.A. No. 2:17!02078LOVEST v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, C.A. No. 2:17!02079CAMARGO v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, C.A. No. 2:17!02092
-8-
Case MDL No. 2179 Document 1979 Filed 12/15/17 Page 11 of 28
MARQUEZ v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, C.A. No. 2:17!02140GLASSFORD v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, C.A. No. 2:17!02145RERICH v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, C.A. No. 2:17!02147DOLAN v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, C.A. No. 2:17!02148REYES v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, C.A. No. 2:17!02151NACUA, ET AL. v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, C.A. No. 2:17!02153MARTIN, ET AL. v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, C.A. No. 2:17!02158
Northern District of California
THEADE v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, C.A. No. 3:17!05643SCHATZMAN v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, C.A. No. 3:17!05669BRIGGS v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, C.A. No. 3:17!05762BECKER, ET AL. v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, C.A. No. 3:17!05765HYDE, ET AL. v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, C.A. No. 5:17!05613SERVANTES, ET AL. v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, C.A. No. 5:17!05615THOMAS, ET AL. v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, C.A. No. 5:17!05619MENDEZ, ET AL. v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, C.A. No. 5:17!05620MARLOWE v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, C.A. No. 5:17!05621TORRES v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, C.A. No. 5:17!05694ACEVES v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, C.A. No. 5:17!05695FORRESTER v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, C.A. No. 5:17!05698TORRES, ET AL. v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, C.A. No. 5:17!05699RODRIGUEZ!DIAZ v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, C.A. No. 5:17!05701RODGERS v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, C.A. No. 5:17!05703HERNANDEZ v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, C.A. No. 5:17!05704SIMMONS v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, C.A. No. 5:17!05705INDIVERI v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, C.A. No. 5:17!05706GARCIA v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, C.A. No. 5:17!05711CONNAUGHTON, ET AL. v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, C.A. No. 5:17!05712KLEIN v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, C.A. No. 5:17!05722MAGAN, ET AL. v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, C.A. No. 5:17!05730KANE, ET AL. v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, C.A. No. 5:17!05745MARTINEZ v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, C.A. No. 5:17!05746PADILLA v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, C.A. No. 5:17!05747PAYSENO v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, C.A. No. 5:17!05749RAVEN v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, C.A. No. 5:17!05750RIVERA v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, C.A. No. 5:17!05751GONZALEZ v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, C.A. No. 5:17!05885REINPRECHT v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, C.A. No. 5:17!05900TAVITIAN v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, C.A. No. 5:17!05915ARCHIBALD, ET AL. v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, C.A. No. 5:17!05922
-9-
Case MDL No. 2179 Document 1979 Filed 12/15/17 Page 12 of 28
DILLARD, ET AL. v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, C.A. No. 5:17!05924ESTRADA v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, C.A. No. 5:17!05925AGUILAR v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, C.A. No. 5:17!05927ALLIANO v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, C.A. No. 5:17!05978HESS v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, C.A. No. 5:17!05996ROMERO, ET AL. v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, C.A. No. 5:17!06022
Southern District of California
MILES, ET AL. v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:17!01993ROJAS, ET AL. v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:17!02005RALEIGH v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:17!02035CARDOSO v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:17!02037ROSE, ET AL. v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:17!02038MINKE, ET AL. v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:17!02039KENNEDY v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:17!02040STANTON v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:17!02043MODROW v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:17!02044ROCHE v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:17!02045REECE v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:17!02046MENDOZA v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:17!02047SALGADO, ET AL. v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:17!02048OMARK v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:17!02049MUHAMMAD v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:17!02050SMITHFIELD, ET AL. v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:17!02109PORTER, ET AL. v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:17!02111FUKASAWA, ET AL. v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:17!02116BILLIARD v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:17!02121ESQUIBEL v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:17!02157
District of Hawaii
HEMZA v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:17!00296
Southern District of Ohio
MARTIN, ET AL. v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, C.A. No. 1:16!00855
Eastern District of Texas
ASCENSIO, ET AL. v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, C.A. No. 4:17!00074
-10-
Case MDL No. 2179 Document 1979 Filed 12/15/17 Page 13 of 28
MDL No. 2815 ! IN RE: CORVETTE Z06 MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION
Motion of plaintiffs Michael Vazquez, et al.; Peter Jankovskis, et al.; Michael Jasper, etal.; and Joseph Minarik to transfer the following actions to the United States District Court forthe Southern District of Florida:
Northern District of California
JASPER, ET AL. v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, C.A. No. 5:17!06284
Southern District of Florida
VAZQUEZ, ET AL. v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, C.A. No. 1:17!22209
Northern District of Illinois
JANKOVSKIS, ET AL. v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, C.A. No. 1:17!07822
Western District of Washington
MINARIK v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, C.A. No. 2:17!01615
MDL No. 2816 ! IN RE: SORIN 3T HEATER!COOLER SYSTEM PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION (NO. II)
Motion of defendants Sorin Group USA, Inc.; Sorin Group Deutschland GmbH; andLivaNova PLC to transfer the following actions to the United States District Court for theDistrict of South Carolina:
Northern District of Alabama
GOREE v. SORIN GROUP USA, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:17!01427
Central District of California
GREEN, ET AL. v. CEDARS SINAI MEDICAL CENTER, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:17!07341
GARVER, ET AL. v. SORIN GROUP DEUTSCHLAND, GMBH, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:17!07802
-11-
Case MDL No. 2179 Document 1979 Filed 12/15/17 Page 14 of 28
District of Colorado
SYKES, ET AL. v. LIVANOVA DEUTSCHLAND GMBH, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:17!02437
Middle District of Florida
DEZENSKI, ET AL. v. LIVANOVA PLC, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:17!00323POOLE v. LIVANOVA DEUTSCHLAND GMBH, ET AL., C.A. No. 8:17!02568
Southern District of Florida
RAMIREZ v. LIVANOVA PLC, ET AL., C.A. No. 0:17!61455
Northern District of Georgia
SHEELY, ET AL. v. LIVANOVA PLC, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:17!00124
Northern District of Illinois
KMAK, ET AL. v. LIVANOVA PLC, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:17!04759
Southern District of Indiana
ABPLANALP v. SORIN GROUP USA, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:17!01916
Northern District of Iowa
SMITH v. SORIN GROUP DEUTSCHLAND GMBH, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:17!03058SAWVEL v. SORIN GROUP DEUTSCHLAND GMBH, ET AL., C.A. No. 6:17!02056
Southern District of Iowa
CRAWFORD v. LIVANOVA DEUTSCHLAND GMBH, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:16!00103REED, ET AL. v. LIVANOVA DEUTSCHLAND GMBH, ET AL.,
C.A. No. 3:17!00063PRESCOTT v. SORIN GROUP DEUTSCHLAND GMBH, ET AL.,
C.A. No. 4:16!00472PICKRELL v. SORIN GROUP USA, INC., C.A. No. 4:17!00191ADAMS v. LIVANOVA DEUTSCHLAND GMBH, C.A. No. 4:17!00237JENKINS, ET AL. v. LIVANOVA DEUTSCHLAND GMBH, ET AL.,
C.A. No. 4:17!00324
-12-
Case MDL No. 2179 Document 1979 Filed 12/15/17 Page 15 of 28
THOMAS, ET AL. v. LIVANOVA DEUTSCHLAND GMBH, ET AL., C.A. No. 4:17!00360
Western District of Kentucky
STEWART, ET AL. v. LIVANOVA DEUTSCHLAND GMBH, ET AL.,C.A. No. 3:17!00644
Eastern District of Michigan
KUHNMUENCH, ET AL. v. LIVANOVA PLC, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:17!11719
District of Minnesota
BRACKENBURY v. SORIN GROUP DEUTSCHLAND GMBH, ET AL., C.A. No. 0:17!04186
Eastern District of New York
DIAZ v. LIVANOVA DEUTSCHLAND GMBH, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:17!06026
Northern District of New York
SUSCO v. LIVANOVA P.L.C., ET AL., C.A. No. 5:17!01164
Eastern District of North Carolina
COLSON, ET AL. v. SORIN GROUP DEUTSCHLAND GMBH, ET AL., C.A. No. 5:17!00519
Western District of North Carolina
BLEVINS v. LIVANOVA PLC, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:16!00785
Middle District of Pennsylvania
WHIPKEY, ET AL. v. LIVANOVA DEUTSCHLAND GMBH, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:17!01233
HERSHEY, ET AL. v. LIVANOVA PLC, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:17!01768
-13-
Case MDL No. 2179 Document 1979 Filed 12/15/17 Page 16 of 28
District of South Carolina
WEINACKER v. LIVANOVA PLC, ET AL., C.A. No. 6:16!02286FOWLER, ET AL. v. LIVANOVA PLC, ET AL., C.A. No. 6:16!02307BAGWELL, ET AL. v. LIVANOVA PLC, ET AL., C.A. No. 6:16!02308MATTISON v. SORIN GROUP DEUTSCHLAND GMBH, ET AL.,
C.A. No. 6:16!03128THOMASON, ET AL. v. SORIN GROUP DEUTSCHLAND GMBH, ET AL.,
C.A. No. 6:16!03129JOHNSON v. SORIN GROUP DEUTSCHLAND GMBH, ET AL.,
C.A. No. 6:16!03130SMITH v. SORIN GROUP DEUTSCHLAND GMBH, ET AL., C.A. No. 6:16!03131GILSTRAP, ET AL. v. SORIN GROUP DEUTSCHLAND GMBH, ET AL.,
C.A. No. 6:16!03132WADDELL v. LIVANOVA PLC, ET AL., C.A. No. 6:17!01060WEST, ET AL. v. LIVANOVA PLC, ET AL., C.A. No. 8:16!02688
District of South Dakota
EISENBERG, ET AL. v. SORIN GROUP DEUTSCHLAND GMBH, ET AL.,C.A. No. 4:16!04175
FAETH v. SORIN GROUP DEUTSCHLAND GMBH, ET AL., C.A. No. 4:17!04049
Eastern District of Tennessee
CANTRELL, ET AL. v. SORIN GROUP DEUTSCHLAND GMBH ET AL.,C.A. No. 2:17!00186
MDL No. 2817 ! IN RE: DEALER MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS ANTITRUST LITIGATION
Motion of defendants CDK Global, LLC; CDK Global, Inc.; The Reynolds and ReynoldsCompany; and Computerized Vehicle Registration to transfer the following actions to the UnitedStates District Court for the Northern District of Illinois:
Central District of California
MOTOR VEHICLE SOFTWARE CORPORATION v. CDK GLOBAL, INC., ET AL.,C.A. No. 2:17!00896
-14-
Case MDL No. 2179 Document 1979 Filed 12/15/17 Page 17 of 28
Northern District of Illinois
HARTLEY BUICK GMC TRUCK, INC. v. CDK GLOBAL, LLC, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:17!07827
Southern District of Mississippi
JOHN O'NEIL JOHNSON TOYOTA, LLC v. CDK GLOBAL, LLC, C.A. No. 3:17!00888
District of New Jersey
TETERBORO AUTOMALL, INC. v. CDK GLOBAL, LLC, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:17!08714
Western District of Wisconsin
AUTHENTICOM, INC. v. CDK GLOBAL, LLC, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:17!00318
MDL No. 2818 ! IN RE: GENERAL MOTORS AIR CONDITIONING MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION
Motion of defendants General Motors Company, General Motors Holdings LLC, andGeneral Motors LLC to transfer the following actions to the United States District Court for theEastern District of Michigan:
Northern District of California
JENKINS, ET AL. v. GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY, C.A. No. 3:17!05864
Eastern District of Michigan
TANGARA, ET AL. v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, C.A. No. 4:17!12786
Eastern District of New York
WON v. GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:17!04819
Northern District of Texas
BELL, ET AL. v. GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY, C.A. No. 2:17!00183
-15-
Case MDL No. 2179 Document 1979 Filed 12/15/17 Page 18 of 28
MDL No. 2819 ! IN RE: RESTASIS (CYCLOSPORINE OPHTHALMIC EMULSION) ANTITRUST LITIGATION
Motion of plaintiffs American Federation of State, County and Municipal EmployeesDistrict Council 37 Health & Security Plan, and 1199SEIU National Benefit Fund, et al., totransfer the following actions to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of NewYork:
Eastern District of New York
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEESDISTRICT COUNCIL 37 HEALTH & SECURITY PLAN v. ALLERGAN, INC.,C.A. No. 1:17!06684
1199SEIU NATIONAL BENEFIT FUND, ET AL. v. ALLERGAN, INC., C.A. No. 1:17!06755
Eastern District of Texas
FWK HOLDINGS, LLC v. ALLERGAN, INC., C.A. No. 2:17!00747
MDL No. 2820 ! IN RE: DICAMBA HERBICIDES LITIGATION
Motion of plaintiffs Brian Warren, et al., to transfer the following actions to the UnitedStates District Court for the Southern District of Illinois:
Eastern District of Arkansas
WHITEHEAD FARMS, ET AL. v. MONSANTO COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:17!00168
BRUCE FARMS PARTNERSHIP, ET AL. v. MONSANTO COMPANY, ET AL.,C.A. No. 3:17!00154
Southern District of Illinois
WARREN, ET AL. v. MONSANTO COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:17!00973
District of Kansas
CLAASSEN, ET AL. v. MONSANTO COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 6:17!01210
-16-
Case MDL No. 2179 Document 1979 Filed 12/15/17 Page 19 of 28
Eastern District of Missouri
BADER FARMS, INC., ET AL. v. MONSANTO COMPANY, C.A. No. 1:16!00299LANDERS, ET AL. v. MONSANTO COMPANY, C.A. No. 1:17!00020SMOKEY ALLEY FARM PARTNERSHIP, ET AL. v. MONSANTO COMPANY,
ET AL., C.A. No. 4:17!02031COW!MIL FARMS, INC. v. MONSANTO COMPANY, C.A. No. 4:17!02386
Western District of Missouri
HARRIS v. MONSANTO COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:17!05262
MDL No. 2821 ! IN RE: BEHR DECKOVER MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION
Motion of plaintiffs Joan Edwards and Linne Rose to transfer the following actions to theUnited States District Court for the Central District of California:
Central District of California
IN RE BEHR PROCESS CORP., C.A. No. 8:17!01016
Eastern District of California
HAMILTON v. BEHR PROCESS CORPORATION, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:17!01765
Middle District of Florida
HAMIL, ET AL. v. BEHR PROCESS CORP., ET AL., C.A. No. 6:17!02058
Northern District of Illinois
BISHOP, ET AL. v. BEHR PROCESS CORPORATION, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:17!04464
District of New Jersey
BROCK v. BEHR PROCESS CORP., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:17!12341
Eastern District of New York
COLE, ET AL. v. BEHR PROCESS CORPORATION, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:17!05052
-17-
Case MDL No. 2179 Document 1979 Filed 12/15/17 Page 20 of 28
Western District of North Carolina
EDWARDS v. BEHR PROCESS CORPORATION, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:17!00683
District of Oregon
LEIKER v. BEHR PROCESS CORP., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:17!01909
Western District of Washington
ROSE v. BEHR PROCESS CORP., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:17!01754
-18-
Case MDL No. 2179 Document 1979 Filed 12/15/17 Page 21 of 28
SECTION BMATTERS DESIGNATED FOR CONSIDERATION WITHOUT ORAL ARGUMENT
MDL No. 2179 ! IN RE: OIL SPILL BY THE OIL RIG "DEEPWATER HORIZON" IN THE GULF OF MEXICO, ON APRIL 20, 2010
Oppositions of plaintiff Shane Bruce and defendants Stephen Teague, M.D.; MarkRasnake, M.D.; University Infectious Disease; Lori Staudenmaier, D.O.; UT Family PhysiciansLaFollette; Gregory A. Finch, P.A.; Campbell County HMA, LLC d/b/a Tennova LaFolletteMedical Center Clinic; Campbell County HMA, LLC d/b/a Tennova Healthcare LaFolletteMedical Center; Knoxville HMA Physician Management, LLC d/b/a Tennova CardiologyServices; Christian Terzian, M.D.; and Jeffrey Nitz P.A. to transfer of the following action to theUnited States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana:
Eastern District of Tennessee
BRUCE v. GREAT BRITAIN, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:17!00285
MDL No. 2295 ! IN RE: PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC, TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT (TCPA) LITIGATION
Motions of defendant Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, to transfer the followingactions to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California:
Middle District of Florida
HYNES v. CAPITAL ONE BANK (USA) NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, ET AL.,C.A. No. 8:17!02176
ANCONA v. PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, INC., C.A. No. 8:17!02396
Northern District of Illinois
ARORA v. PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC, C.A. No. 1:17!06851
-19-
Case MDL No. 2179 Document 1979 Filed 12/15/17 Page 22 of 28
MDL No. 2323 ! IN RE: NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE PLAYERS' CONCUSSION INJURY LITIGATION
Opposition of plaintiff Shayanna Jenkins Hernandez to transfer of the following action tothe United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania:
District of Massachusetts
HERNANDEZ v. NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:17!12244
MDL No. 2327 ! IN RE: ETHICON, INC., PELVIC REPAIR SYSTEM PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION
Opposition of plaintiffs Margo Karn, et al., to transfer of the following action to theUnited States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia:
Central District of California
KARN, ET AL. v. CALDERA MEDICAL, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:17!07515
MDL No. 2543 ! IN RE: GENERAL MOTORS LLC IGNITION SWITCH LITIGATION
Oppositions of plaintiffs Megan Hancock, et al., and Kenneth Myers to transfer of theirrespective following actions to the United States District Court for the Southern District of NewYork:
Southern District of Ohio
HANCOCK, ET AL. v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC DBA GENERAL MOTORSCOMPANY DBA GENERAL MOTORS, C.A. No. 3:17!00309
Northern District of West Virginia
MYERS v. GENERAL MOTORS, C.A. No. 3:17!00122
-20-
Case MDL No. 2179 Document 1979 Filed 12/15/17 Page 23 of 28
MDL No. 2557 ! IN RE: AUTO BODY SHOP ANTITRUST LITIGATION
Motions of defendants State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company; AllstateInsurance Company; Encompass Home and Auto Insurance Co.; Esurance Insurance Company;Travelers Property Casualty Insurance Company; Liberty Mutual Insurance Company; SafecoInsurance Company of America; State Auto Mutual Insurance Company; USAA CasualtyInsurance Company; The Cincinnati Insurance Company; Nationwide General InsuranceCompany; 21st Century Insurance Company Farmers Insurance Exchange; and KemperIndependence Insurance Company to transfer their respective following actions to the UnitedStates District Court for the Middle District of Florida:
Western District of Pennsylvania
PROFESSIONAL, INC. v. FIRST CHOICE AUTO INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL.,C.A. No. 3:17!00170
PROFESSIONAL, INC. v. KEMPER INDEPENDENT INSURANCE COMPANY,C.A. No. 3:17!00176
MDL No. 2599 ! IN RE: TAKATA AIRBAG PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION
Opposition of plaintiff Lynda Flores to transfer of the following action to the UnitedStates District Court for the Southern District of Florida:
Central District of California
FLORES v. TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:17!08334
MDL No. 2709 ! IN RE: DOLLAR GENERAL CORP. MOTOR OIL MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION
Opposition of plaintiff State of Mississippi to transfer of the following action to theUnited States District Court for the Western District of Missouri:
Southern District of Mississippi
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI v. DOLLAR GENERAL CORPORATION, ET AL.,C.A. No. 3:17!00801
-21-
Case MDL No. 2179 Document 1979 Filed 12/15/17 Page 24 of 28
MDL No. 2738 ! IN RE: JOHNSON & JOHNSON TALCUM POWDER PRODUCTS MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION
Opposition of plaintiffs Dawn Hannah and Any Johnson, et al., to transfer of theirrespective following actions to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey:
Eastern District of Missouri
HANNAH v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 4:17!02647JOHNSON, ET AL. v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 4:17!02651
MDL No. 2754 ! IN RE: ELIQUIS (APIXABAN) PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION
Oppositions of plaintiffs to transfer of their respective following actions to the UnitedStates District Court for the Southern District of New York:
District of Delaware
MELZER, ET AL. v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:17!01094
FEGLEY, ET AL. v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:17!01095
CARTER v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:17!01505HAWKINS v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL.,
C.A. No. 1:17!01506BOOKER v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:17!01507MARKS v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:17!01508VOWELL v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:17!01509LEONARD v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL.,
C.A. No. 1:17!01510THOMAS v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:17!01533SMITH v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:17!01556HOLBROOKS v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL.,
C.A. No. 1:17!01557HALL v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:17!01558DAVIS v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:17!01559WELLINGTON v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL.,
C.A. No. 1:17!01560SMITH v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:17!01561SHOWERS v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL.,
C.A. No. 1:17!01562
-22-
Case MDL No. 2179 Document 1979 Filed 12/15/17 Page 25 of 28
LITTLEFIELD v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:17!01563
CUTSINGER v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:17!01564
LOMBARDO v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:17!01565
MILLER v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:17!01566MCDOUGLE v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL.,
C.A. No. 1:17!01567CARR v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:17!01568
MDL No. 2768 ! IN RE: STRYKER LFIT V40 FEMORAL HEAD PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION
Oppositions of plaintiffs Ronald Cote and Phillippe J. Bolduc to transfer of theirrespective following actions to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts:
District of Rhode Island
COTE v. STRYKER CORPORATION, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:17!00311BOLDUC v. STRYKER CORPORATION, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:17!00429
MDL No. 2775 ! IN RE: SMITH & NEPHEW BIRMINGHAM HIP RESURFACING (BHR) HIP IMPLANT PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION
Oppositions of plaintiffs Ronald L. Cox, et al., and defendant Smith & Nephew, Inc., totransfer of their respective following actions to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland:
Northern District of Georgia
COX, ET AL. v. SMITH & NEPHEW, INC., C.A. No. 1:17!03047
Southern District of Ohio
FISHER v. SMITH & NEPHEW, INC., C.A. No. 1:17!00347
-23-
Case MDL No. 2179 Document 1979 Filed 12/15/17 Page 26 of 28
MDL No. 2795 ! IN RE: CENTURYLINK RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMER BILLING DISPUTES LITIGATION
Oppositions of plaintiff Inter-Marketing Group USA, Inc., and defendants CenturyLink,Inc.; Glen F. Post III; R. Stewart Ewing, Jr.; and David D. Cole to transfer of their respectivefollowing actions to the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota:
Western District of Louisiana
CRAIG v. CENTURYLINK, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:17!01005SCOTT v. CENTURYLINK, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:17!01033THUMMETI v. CENTURYLINK, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:17!01065
Southern District of New York
INTER!MARKETING GROUP USA, INC. v. CENTURYLINK, INC., ET AL.,C.A. No. 1:17!08234
MDL No. 2804 ! IN RE: NATIONAL PRESCRIPTION OPIATE LITIGATION
Oppositions of plaintiffs Linda Hughes and City of Seattle and defendants KVK-Tech,Inc.; Amneal Pharmaceuticals of New York, LLC; Impax Laboratories, Inc.; and West-WardPharmaceuticals Corp., to transfer of their respective following actions to the United StatesDistrict Court for the Northern District of Ohio:
Eastern District of Missouri
HUGHES v. MALLINCKRODT BRAND PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ET AL.,C.A. No. 4:17!02426
Western District of Washington
CITY OF SEATTLE v. PURDUE PHARMA L.P., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:17!01577
-24-
Case MDL No. 2179 Document 1979 Filed 12/15/17 Page 27 of 28
RULE 11.1: HEARING SESSIONS AND ORAL ARGUMENT
(a) Schedule. The Panel shall schedule sessions for oral argument and consideration ofother matters as desirable or necessary. The Chair shall determine the time, place and agenda foreach hearing session. The Clerk of the Panel shall give appropriate notice to counsel for all parties.The Panel may continue its consideration of any scheduled matters.
(b) Oral Argument Statement. Any party affected by a motion may file a separatestatement setting forth reasons why oral argument should, or need not, be heard. Such statementsshall be captioned “Reasons Why Oral Argument Should [Need Not] Be Heard” and shall be limitedto 2 pages.
(i) The parties affected by a motion to transfer may agree to waive oral argument. The Panel will take this into consideration in determining the need for oral argument.
(c) Hearing Session. The Panel shall not consider transfer or remand of any actionpending in a federal district court when any party timely opposes such transfer or remand withoutfirst holding a hearing session for the presentation of oral argument. The Panel may dispense withoral argument if it determines that:
(i) the dispositive issue(s) have been authoritatively decided; or (ii) the facts and legal arguments are adequately presented and oral argument would not significantly aid the decisional process.
Unless otherwise ordered, the Panel shall consider all other matters, such as a motion forreconsideration, upon the basis of the pleadings.
(d) Notification of Oral Argument. The Panel shall promptly notify counsel of thosematters in which oral argument is scheduled, as well as those matters that the Panel will consider onthe pleadings. The Clerk of the Panel shall require counsel to file and serve notice of their intent toeither make or waive oral argument. Failure to do so shall be deemed a waiver of oral argument. Ifcounsel does not attend oral argument, the matter shall not be rescheduled and that party’s positionshall be treated as submitted for decision on the basis of the pleadings filed.
(i) Absent Panel approval and for good cause shown, only those parties to actions who have filed a motion or written response to a motion or order shall be permitted to present oral argument.
(ii) The Panel will not receive oral testimony except upon notice, motion and an order expressly providing for it.
(e) Duty to Confer. Counsel in an action set for oral argument shall confer separatelyprior to that argument for the purpose of organizing their arguments and selecting representatives topresent all views without duplication. Oral argument is a means for counsel to emphasize the keypoints of their arguments, and to update the Panel on any events since the conclusion of briefing.
(f) Time Limit for Oral Argument. Barring exceptional circumstances, the Panel shallallot a maximum of 20 minutes for oral argument in each matter. The time shall be divided amongthose with varying viewpoints. Counsel for the moving party or parties shall generally be heard first.
Case MDL No. 2179 Document 1979 Filed 12/15/17 Page 28 of 28
Hearing Session Order&
Amendments
March 29, 2018
UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANELon
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
NOTICE OF HEARING SESSION
Pursuant to the order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation filed today,notice is hereby given that a hearing session has been scheduled to consider various mattersunder 28 U.S.C. § 1407.
DATE OF HEARING SESSION: March 29, 2018
LOCATION OF HEARING SESSION: Richard B. Russell Federal Building and United States Courthouse
Ceremonial Courtroom, 23rd Floor 75 Ted Turner Drive S.W. Atlanta, Georgia 30303
TIME OF HEARING SESSION: In those matters designated for oral argument, counselpresenting oral argument must be present at 8:00 a.m. in order for the Panel to allocate theamount of time for oral argument. Oral argument will commence at 9:30 a.m.
SCHEDULED MATTERS: Matters scheduled for consideration at this hearing session are listed on the enclosed Hearing Session Order and Schedule of Matters for Hearing Session.
• Section A of this Schedule lists the matters designated for oral argument and includes all actions encompassed by Motion(s) for transfer filed pursuant to Rules 6.1 and 6.2. Any party waiving oral argument pursuant to Rule 11.1(d) need not attend the Hearing Session.
• Section B of this Schedule lists the matters that the Panel has determined to consider without oral argument, pursuant to Rule 11.1(c). Parties and counsel involved in these matters need not attend the Hearing Session.
ORAL ARGUMENT: • The Panel carefully considers the positions advocated in filings with the Panel
when it allocates time to attorneys presenting oral argument. The Panel, therefore,expects attorneys to adhere to those positions including those concerning anappropriate transferee district. Any change in position should be conveyed toPanel staff before the beginning of oral argument. Where an attorney thereafteradvocates a position different from that conveyed to Panel staff, the Panel mayreduce the allotted argument time and decline to hear further from that attorney.
Case MDL No. 2291 Document 43 Filed 02/15/18 Page 1 of 20
- 2 -
• The Panel expects attorneys presenting oral argument to be prepared to discusswhat steps they have taken to pursue alternatives to centralization including, butnot limited to, engaging in informal coordination of discovery and scheduling, andseeking Section 1404 transfer of one or more of the subject cases.
For those matters listed on Section A of the Schedule, the "Notice of Presentation or Waiver of Oral Argument" must be filed in this office no later than March 12, 2018. The procedures governing Panel oral argument (Panel Rule 11.1) are attached. The Panel strictly adheres to theseprocedures.
FOR THE PANEL:
Jeffery N. LüthiClerk of the Panel
cc: Clerk, United States District for the Northern District of Georgia
Case MDL No. 2291 Document 43 Filed 02/15/18 Page 2 of 20
UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANELon
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
HEARING SESSION ORDER
The Panel issues the following orders in connection with its next hearing session,
IT IS ORDERED that on March 29, 2018, the Panel will convene a hearing session in Atlanta, Georgia, to consider the matters on the attached Schedule under 28 U.S.C. § 1407.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Panel may, on its own initiative, consider transferof any or all of the actions in those matters to any district or districts.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Panel will hear oral argument on the matters listedon Section A of the attached Schedule, unless the parties waive oral argument or unless the Panellater decides to dispense with oral argument pursuant to Panel Rule 11.1(c).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Panel will consider without oral argument thematters listed on Section B of the attached Schedule pursuant to Panel Rule 11.1(c). The Panelreserves the prerogative, on any basis including submissions of parties pursuant to Panel Rule11.1(b), to designate any of those matters for oral argument.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Judicial Panel on MultidistrictLitigation shall direct notice of this hearing session to counsel for all parties involved in thematters on the attached Schedule.
PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
_________________________________ Sarah S. Vance Chair
Marjorie O. Rendell Charles R. Breyer Lewis A. Kaplan Ellen Segal Huvelle
R. David Proctor Catherine D. Perry
Case MDL No. 2291 Document 43 Filed 02/15/18 Page 3 of 20
SCHEDULE OF MATTERS FOR HEARING SESSIONMarch 29, 2018 !! Atlanta, Georgia
SECTION AMATTERS DESIGNATED FOR ORAL ARGUMENT
(This schedule contains only those civil actions listed in the Schedule(s) of Actions submitted with the docketedmotion(s) for transfer. See Panel Rules 6.1 and 6.2. In the event these dockets are centralized, other actions of whichthe Panel has been informed may be subject to transfer pursuant to Panel Rule 7.1.)
MDL No. 2822 ! IN RE: FIRST DATABANK PRESCRIPTION INFORMATION LITIGATION
Motion of defendant First Databank, Inc., to transfer the following actions to the UnitedStates District Court for the Northern District of California:
Northern District of California
EXELTIS USA, INC. v. FIRST DATABANK, INC., C.A. No. 4:17!04810
Northern District of Georgia
ACELLA PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC v. FIRST DATABANK, INC., C.A. No. 1:17!05013
Eastern District of Pennsylvania
WOMEN'S CHOICE PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC v. FIRST DATABANK, INC., C.A. No. 2:17!03725
MDL No. 2824 ! IN RE: GOLD KING MINE RELEASE IN SAN JUAN COUNTY, COLORADO, ON AUGUST 5, 2015
Motion of defendant Environmental Restoration, LLC, to transfer the following actions tothe United States District Court for the District of New Mexico:
District of New Mexico
STATE OF NEW MEXICO v. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONAGENCY, C.A. No. 1:16!00465
NAVAJO NATION v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:16!00931
MCDANIEL, ET AL. v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:17!00710
Case MDL No. 2291 Document 43 Filed 02/15/18 Page 4 of 20
District of Utah
STATE OF UTAH, THE v. ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:17!00866
MDL No. 2825 ! IN RE: ALTERYX, INC., CUSTOMER DATA SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION
Motion of plaintiff David Kacur to transfer the following actions to the United StatesDistrict Court for the Central District of California:
Central District of California
KACUR v. ALTERYX, INC., C.A. No. 8:17!02222
District of Nevada
FOSKARIS v. ALTERYX, INC., C.A. No. 2:17!03088
District of Oregon
JACKSON v. ALTERYX, INC., C.A. No. 3:17!02021
MDL No. 2826 ! IN RE: UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., DATA SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION
Motion of plaintiffs Steven Agans, et al., to transfer the following actions to the UnitedStates District Court for the Northern District of California:
Northern District of Alabama
GRICE v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., C.A. No. 5:17!01975
Central District of California
FLORES v. RASIER, LLC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:17!08503HELLER, ET AL. v. RASIER, LLC, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:17!08545
Northern District of California
WEBBER, ET AL. v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:17!06758
-2-
Case MDL No. 2291 Document 43 Filed 02/15/18 Page 5 of 20
AGANS, ET AL. v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., C.A. No. 3:17!06759BURNETT, ET AL. v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., C.A. No. 4:17!06835
Northern District of Illinois
HARANG, ET AL. v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:17!08500FRANKLIN, ET AL. v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., C.A. No.1:17!08510WEST v. UBER USA, LLC, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:17!08593PATNI, ET AL. v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:17!08709
Eastern District of Pennsylvania
DESIGNOR v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 5:17!05289
MDL No. 2827 ! IN RE: APPLE INC. DEVICE PERFORMANCE LITIGATION
Motion of plaintiff Nicole Gallmann to transfer the following actions to the United StatesDistrict Court for the Northern District of California:
Central District of California
BOGDANOVICH, ET AL. v. APPLE INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:17!09138MAILYAN v. APPLE INC., C.A. No. 2:17!09192
Northern District of California
HARVEY v. APPLE INC., C.A. No. 5:17!07274GALLMANN v. APPLE INC., C.A. No. 5:17!07285HAKIMI v. APPLE INC., C.A. No. 5:17!07292BATISTA, ET AL. v. APPLE INC., C.A. No. 5:17!07355
Southern District of California
COOK v. APPLE INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:17!02579
Southern District of Florida
ABUROS v. APPLE INC., C.A. No. 1:17!24712
Northern District of Illinois
MANGANO, ET AL. v. APPLE INC., C.A. No. 1:17!09178NEILAN v. APPLE INC., C.A. No. 1:17!09296
-3-
Case MDL No. 2291 Document 43 Filed 02/15/18 Page 6 of 20
Southern District of Indiana
SCHROEDER v. APPLE INC., C.A. No. 1:17!04750
Eastern District of Louisiana
LANASA v. APPLE INC., C.A. No. 2:17!17878
Southern District of Mississippi
MCINNIS, ET AL. v. APPLE INC., C.A. No. 1:17!00358
Western District of Missouri
BURTON, ET AL. v. APPLE INC., C.A. No. 2:17!04257
Eastern District of New York
DRANTIVY v. APPLE INC., C.A. No. 1:17!07480LAZARUS, ET AL. v. APPLE INC., C.A. No. 1:17!07485
Southern District of New York
RABINOVITS, ET AL. v. APPLE INC., C.A. No. 1:17!10032
District of South Carolina
BRAND, ET AL. v. APPLE INC., C.A. No. 2:17!03453
Eastern District of Texas
MILLER, ET AL. v. APPLE INC., C.A. No. 4:17!00889
MDL No. 2828 ! IN RE: INTEL CORP. CPU MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION
Motion of plaintiffs Stephen Garcia, et al., and Richard Reis, et al., to transfer thefollowing actions to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California:
Northern District of California
GARCIA, ET AL. v. INTEL CORPORATION, C.A. No. 5:18!00046REIS, ET AL. v. INTEL CORPORATION, C.A. No. 5:18!00074
-4-
Case MDL No. 2291 Document 43 Filed 02/15/18 Page 7 of 20
Southern District of Indiana
JONES v. INTEL CORPORATION, C.A. No. 1:18!00029
Eastern District of New York
STERN v. INTEL CORPORATION, C.A. No. 1:18!00065
District of Oregon
MANN v. INTEL CORPORATION, C.A. No. 6:18!00028
MDL No. 2829 ! IN RE: MT. GOX BITCOIN EXCHANGE LITIGATION
Motion of plaintiff Anthony Motto to transfer the following actions to the United StatesDistrict Court for the Northern District of Illinois:
Central District of California
LACK v. MIZUHO BANK, LTD., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:18!00617
Northern District of Illinois
GREENE, ET AL. v. MTGOX, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:14!01437
Eastern District of Pennsylvania
PEARCE v. MIZUHO BANK, LTD., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:18!00306
MDL No. 2830 ! IN RE: UNILOC USA, INC., AND UNILOC LUXEMBOURG, S.A., HPE PORTFOLIO PATENT LITIGATION
Motion of plaintiffs Uniloc USA, Inc., et al., to transfer the following actions to theUnited States District Court for the Northern District of Texas:
Northern District of California
UNILOC USA, INC., ET AL. v. LOGITECH, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:17!06733UNILOC USA, INC., ET AL. v. APPLE INC., C.A. No. 3:18!00358UNILOC USA, INC., ET AL. v. APPLE INC., C.A. No. 3:18!00360UNILOC USA, INC., ET AL. v. APPLE INC., C.A. No. 3:18!00363UNILOC USA, INC., ET AL. v. APPLE INC., C.A. No. 3:18!00572
-5-
Case MDL No. 2291 Document 43 Filed 02/15/18 Page 8 of 20
UNILOC USA, INC., ET AL. v. APPLE INC., C.A. No. 4:18!00359UNILOC USA, INC., ET AL. v. APPLE INC., C.A. No. 4:18!00365
District of Delaware
UNILOC USA, INC., ET AL. v. MOTOROLA MOBILITY, LLC, C.A. No. 1:17!01526UNILOC USA, INC., ET AL. v. MOTOROLA MOBILITY, LLC, C.A. No. 1:17!01527UNILOC USA, INC., ET AL. v. PEEL TECHNOLOGIES, INC., C.A. No. 1:17!01552UNILOC USA, INC., ET AL. v. WINK LABS, INC., C.A. No. 1:17!01656UNILOC USA, INC., ET AL. v. MOTOROLA MOBILITY, LLC, C.A. No. 1:17!01657UNILOC USA, INC., ET AL. v. MOTOROLA MOBILITY, LLC, C.A. No. 1:17!01658
Southern District of Indiana
UNILOC USA, INC., ET AL. v. EXCLUSIVE GROUP LLC, C.A. No. 1:17!03962
Eastern District of Texas
UNILOC USA, INC., ET AL. v. HUAWEI DEVICE USA, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:17!00707
UNILOC USA, INC., ET AL. v. HUAWEI DEVICE USA, INC., ET AL.,C.A. No. 2:17!00714
UNILOC USA, INC., ET AL. v. HUAWEI DEVICE USA, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:17!00722
Northern District of Texas
UNILOC USA, INC., ET AL. v. LG ELECTRONICS U.S.A., INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 4:17!00825
UNILOC USA, INC., ET AL. v. LG ELECTRONICS U.S.A., INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 4:17!00826
UNILOC USA, INC., ET AL. v. LG ELECTRONICS U.S.A., INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 4:17!00827
UNILOC USA, INC., ET AL. v. LG ELECTRONICS U.S.A., INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 4:17!00828
UNILOC USA, INC., ET AL. v. LG ELECTRONICS U.S.A., INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 4:17!00858
Western District of Washington
UNILOC USA, INC., ET AL. v. HTC AMERICA, INC., C.A. No. 2:17!01558UNILOC USA, INC., ET AL. v. HTC AMERICA, INC., C.A. No. 2:17!01561UNILOC USA, INC., ET AL. v. HTC AMERICA, INC., C.A. No. 2:17!01562
-6-
Case MDL No. 2291 Document 43 Filed 02/15/18 Page 9 of 20
MDL No. 2831 ! IN RE: AM RETAIL GROUP, INC., FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT (FLSA) AND WAGE AND HOUR LITIGATION
Motion of defendant AM Retail Group, Inc., to transfer the following actions to theUnited States District Court for the Eastern District of California:
Eastern District of California
WATKINS, ET AL. v. AM RETAIL GROUP, INC., C.A. No. 1:17!01287
Northern District of California
SANCHEZ v. AM RETAIL GROUP, INC., C.A. No. 3:18!00287
MDL No. 2832 ! IN RE: LIQUID TOPPINGS DISPENSING SYSTEM ('447) PATENT LITIGATION
Motion of defendants Guillermo Canedo and Icetastic Enterprises, LLC, to transfer thefollowing actions to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida:
District of Arizona
KONA ICE, INC. v. MESSIER, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:17!03298
District of Colorado
KONA ICE, INC. v. LIU, C.A. No. 1:17!02301KONA ICE, INC. v. SILVA!ROMERO, C.A. No. 1:17!02302
Northern District of Florida
KONA ICE, INC. v. BAILEY, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:17!00698
Southern District of Florida
KONA ICE, INC. v. CANEDO, ET AL., C.A. No. 0:17!61842TIKIZ FRANCHISING, LLC, ET AL. v. KONA ICE, INC., C.A. No. 0:18!60237
Western District of Louisiana
KONA ICE, INC. v. NAVARRE, C.A. No. 2:17!01208
-7-
Case MDL No. 2291 Document 43 Filed 02/15/18 Page 10 of 20
District of Maryland
KONA ICE, INC. v. SNEE, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:17!02809
Western District of North Carolina
KONA ICE, INC. v. BUMGARNER, C.A. No. 3:17!00563
Eastern District of Texas
KONA ICE, INC. v. HODGSON, ET AL., C.A. No. 4:17!00667
Southern District of Texas
KONA ICE COMPANY v. CROWDER, ET AL., C.A. No. 4:17!02837
Western District of Texas
KONA ICE, INC. v. DETAVERNIER, ET AL., C.A. No. 5:17!00931
-8-
Case MDL No. 2291 Document 43 Filed 02/15/18 Page 11 of 20
SECTION BMATTERS DESIGNATED FOR CONSIDERATION WITHOUT ORAL ARGUMENT
MDL No. 2291 - IN RE: WESSON OIL MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION
Motion of defendant Conagra Brands, Inc., to reassign this MDL, comprised of thefollowing cases, from the United States District Court for the Central District of California to theUnited States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois:
Central District of California
BRISENO v. CONAGRA FOODS, INC., C.A. No. 2:11!05379 TOOMER v. CONAGRA FOODS, INC., C.A. No. 2:11!06127 MCFADDEN v. CONAGRA FOODS, INC., C.A. No. 2:11!06402 RUIZ v. CONAGRA FOODS, INC., C.A. No. 2:11!06480 KREIN v. CONAGRA FOODS, INC., C.A. No. 2:11!07097 VIRR v. CONAGRA FODS, INC., C.A. No. 2:11!08421 SCARPELLI, ET AL. v. CONAGRA FOODS, INC., C.A. No. 2:11!08513
( D. New Jersey, C.A. No. 2:11!04038) ANDRADE v. CONAGRA FOODS, INC., C.A. No. 2:11!09308
MDL No. 2295 ! IN RE: PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC, TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT (TCPA) LITIGATION
Motion of defendant Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, to transfer the following actionto the United States District Court for the Southern District of California:
Middle District of Florida
WILLIAMS v. PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC, C.A. No. 6:17!02064
MDL No. 2406 ! IN RE: BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD ANTITRUST LITIGATION
Opposition of plaintiff Reva, Inc., to transfer of the following action to the United StatesDistrict Court for the Northern District of Alabama:
Southern District of Florida
REVA, INC. v. HEALTHKEEPERS INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:17!24158
-9-
Case MDL No. 2291 Document 43 Filed 02/15/18 Page 12 of 20
MDL No. 2433 ! IN RE: E. I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY C!8 PERSONAL INJURY LITIGATION
Oppositions of defendants E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company and The ChemoursCompany to transfer of the following actions to the United States District Court for the SouthernDistrict of Ohio:
Southern District of West Virginia
RISER v. E. I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, C.A. No. 2:17!03795GREGG v. E. I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, C.A. No. 2:17!03926BRAGG v. E. I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, C.A. No. 2:17!04228STOVER v. E. I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, ET AL.,
C.A. No. 2:17!04375ANDERSON, ET AL. v. E. I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY,
C.A. No. 2:17!04400
MDL No. 2557 ! IN RE: AUTO BODY SHOP ANTITRUST LITIGATION
Motion of defendant Government Employees Insurance Company to transfer thefollowing action to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida:
District of Oregon
LEIF'S AUTO COLLISION CENTERS, LLC v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEESINSURANCE COMPANY, C.A. No. 3:17!01822
MDL No. 2590 ! IN RE: NAVISTAR MAXXFORCE ENGINES MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION
Opposition of plaintiff Christopher Moser to transfer of the following actionto the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois:
Eastern District of Texas
MOSER v. NAVISTAR INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, ET AL., C.A. No. 4:17!00598
-10-
Case MDL No. 2291 Document 43 Filed 02/15/18 Page 13 of 20
MDL No. 2599 ! IN RE: TAKATA AIRBAG PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION
Opposition of plaintiffs Arthur L. Bustos, et al., to transfer of the following action to theUnited States District Court for the Southern District of Florida:
District of New Mexico
BUSTOS, ET AL. v. LUCERO, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:18!00058
MDL No. 2613 ! IN RE: TD BANK, N.A., DEBIT CARD OVERDRAFT FEE LITIGATION
Oppositions of plaintiff Britney Lawrence and Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs, et al., totransfer of the following action to the United States District Court for the District of SouthCarolina:
District of New Jersey
LAWRENCE v. TD BANK N.A., C.A. No. 1:17!12583
MDL No. 2627 ! IN RE: LUMBER LIQUIDATORS CHINESE!MANUFACTURED FLOORING PRODUCTS MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION
Oppositions of plaintiffs Kaleigh Craig, et al., and Bryan Gaus, et al., to transfer of theirrespective following actions to the United States District Court for the Eastern District ofVirginia:
District of Nebraska
CRAIG, ET AL. v. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS, INC., C.A. No. 8:17!00480
Northern District of West Virginia
GAUS, ET AL. v. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 5:17!00177
-11-
Case MDL No. 2291 Document 43 Filed 02/15/18 Page 14 of 20
MDL No. 2738 ! IN RE: JOHNSON & JOHNSON TALCUM POWDER PRODUCTS MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION
Oppositions of plaintiffs Darren Cartwright, et al.; Maureen Kassimali, et al.; Janice M.Callahan, et al.; and Phyllis D. Smith, et al., to transfer of their respective following actions tothe United States District Court for the District of New Jersey:
Eastern District of Missouri
CARTWRIGHT, ET AL. v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, ET AL., C.A. No. 4:17!02851KASSIMALI, ET AL. v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 4:18!00014
Middle District of Pennsylvania
CALLAHAN, ET AL. v. ACME MARKETS, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:18!00022SMITH, ET AL. v. GIANT FOOD STORES, LLC, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:18!00023
MDL No. 2741 ! IN RE: ROUNDUP PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION
Oppositions of plaintiffs Joseph Shible and Richard Heinzen, et al., and defendantMonsanto Company to transfer of their respective following actions to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California:
Eastern District of Arkansas
WINDLE, ET AL. v. MONSANTO COMPANY, C.A. No. 4:18!00023
District of Delaware
SHIBLE v. MONSANTO COMPANY, C.A. No. 1:18!00080
Eastern District of Missouri
HEINZEN, ET AL. v. MONSANTO COMPANY, C.A. No. 4:17!02881
-12-
Case MDL No. 2291 Document 43 Filed 02/15/18 Page 15 of 20
MDL No. 2754 ! IN RE: ELIQUIS (APIXABAN) PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION
Oppositions of plaintiffs to transfer of their respective following actions to the UnitedStates District Court for the Southern District of New York:
District of Delaware
BAGINSKI v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:17!01607
MORROW v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:17!01608
BATES v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:17!01609RISNER v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:17!01610GREEN v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:17!01611HASSENPFLUG v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL.,
C.A. No. 1:17!01644BEECHIM v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL.,
C.A. No. 1:17!01666BISHOP v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:17!01667WALLS v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:17!01694EDMONDSON v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL.,
C.A. No. 1:17!01695HAGEDORN v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL.,
C.A. No. 1:17!01708ARDEN v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:17!01709CARTER v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:17!01715LOONEY v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:17!01716SWEENEY v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL.,
C.A. No. 1:17!01756WOLFE v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:17!01757HOWARD v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL.,
C.A. No. 1:17!01759CALLAIS v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:17!01760MELSER v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:17!01761DOLLAR v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:17!01762JENNINGS v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL.,
C.A. No. 1:17!01763TOUPS v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:17!01764RUGGLES v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL.,
C.A. No. 1:17!01765JENKINS v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:17!01766DOWELL v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:17!01767FRIDDLE v. BRISTOL!MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:17!01768
-13-
Case MDL No. 2291 Document 43 Filed 02/15/18 Page 16 of 20
MDL No. 2777 ! IN RE: CHRYSLER!DODGE!JEEP ECODIESEL MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION
Motion of defendants Chrysler Automobiles N.V., FCA US LLC, Sergio Marchionne,Scott Kunselman, Michael Dahl, Steve Mazure, and Robert E. Lee to transfer the followingaction to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California:
Southern District of New York
PIRNIK v. FIAT CHRYSLER AUTOMOBILES N.V., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:15!07199
MDL No. 2782 ! IN RE: ETHICON PHYSIOMESH FLEXIBLE COMPOSITE HERNIA MESH PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION
Opposition of plaintiff Janice Gilmore to transfer of the following action to the UnitedStates District Court for the Northern District of Georgia:
Southern District of Indiana
GILMORE v. HOWARD, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:18!00087
MDL No. 2800 ! IN RE: EQUIFAX, INC., CUSTOMER DATA SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION
Oppositions of plaintiffs Ashley Abramson, et al.; Katiushka Rebeca Acosta-Smith, et al.; City of Chicago; Kevin L. Cofield, Sr., et al.; Craig Ward, et al.; and Craven RandallCasper and defendants Experian Information Solutions, Inc., and Trans Union, LLC to transfer of their respective following actions to the United States District Court for the Northern Districtof Georgia:
Central District of California
ABRAMSON, ET AL. v. EQUIFAX INC., C.A. No. 8:17!02201ACOSTA!SMITH, ET AL. v. EQUIFAX, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 8:18!00005
Northern District of Illinois
CITY OF CHICAGO v. EQUIFAX, INC., C.A. No. 1:17!07798
District of Maryland
COFIELD, SR., ET AL. v. EQUIFAX, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:17!03119WARD, ET AL. v. EQUIFAX, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:17!03246
-14-
Case MDL No. 2291 Document 43 Filed 02/15/18 Page 17 of 20
Middle District of North Carolina
CASPER v. EQUIFAX, INC., C.A. No. 1:17!01004
MDL No. 2804 ! IN RE: NATIONAL PRESCRIPTION OPIATE LITIGATION
Oppositions of certain plaintiffs and defendants KVK-Tech, Inc., and BloodworthWholesale Drugs, Inc., to transfer of their respective following actions to the United StatesDistrict Court for the Northern District of Ohio:
Southern District of Alabama
THE ESTATE OF BRUCE BROCKEL, DECEASED, BY AND THROUGH DONNABROCKEL, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE v. PURDUE PHARMA L.P., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:17!00521
Northern District of Georgia
THE COUNTY OF FULTON v. PURDUE PHARMA, LP, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:17!04757
Eastern District of Kentucky
THE COUNTY OF FLOYD v. PURDUE PHARMA L.P., ET AL., C.A. No. 7:17!00186
PIKE v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 7:17!00193KNOTT v. PURDUE PHARMA L.P., ET AL., C.A. No. 7:18!00006
Middle District of Louisiana
LOUISIANA HEALTH SERVICE & INDEMNITY COMPANY D/B/A BLUECROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF LOUISIANA, ET AL. v. PURDUE PHARMA,LP, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:17!01766
District of New Jersey
CITY OF PATERSON v. PURDUE PHARMA L.P., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:17!13433
Southern District of Ohio
JEFFERSON COUNTY, OHIO v. PURDUE PHARMA L.P., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:18!00037
District of Oregon
COUNTY OF MULTNOMAH v. PURDUE PHARMA, LP, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:17!02010
-15-
Case MDL No. 2291 Document 43 Filed 02/15/18 Page 18 of 20
Northern District of West Virginia
BROOKE COUNTY COMMISSION v. PURDUE PHARMA L.P., ET AL., C.A. No. 5:18!00009
HANCOCK COUNTY COMMISSION v. PURDUE PHARMA L.P., ET AL., C.A. No. 5:18!00010
HARRISON COUNTY COMMISSION v. PURDUE PHARMA L.P., ET AL., C.A. No. 5:18!00011
LEWIS COUNTY COMMISSION v. PURDUE PHARMA L.P., ET AL., C.A. No. 5:18!00012
MARSHALL COUNTY COMMISSION v. PURDUE PHARMA L.P., ET AL., C.A. No. 5:18!00013
OHIO COUNTY COMMISSION v. PURDUE PHARMA L.P., ET AL., C.A. No. 5:18!00014
TYLER COUNTY COMMISSION v. PURDUE PHARMA L.P., ET AL., C.A. No. 5:18!00015
WETZEL COUNTY COMMISSION v. PURDUE PHARMA L.P., ET AL., C.A. No. 5:18!00016
Western District of Wisconsin
ST. CROIX CHIPPEWA INDIANS OF WISCONSIN v. MCKESSONCORPORATION, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:17!00914
MDL No. 2823 ! IN RE: BERNZOMATIC AND WORTHINGTON BRANDED HANDHELD TORCH PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION
Motion of plaintiffs Jason Lou Peralta and Kurtis M. Bailey to transfer the followingactions to the United States District Court for the Central District of California:
District of Arizona
PERALTA v. WORTHINGTON INDUSTRIES INCORPORATED, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:17!03195
Central District of California
MARMONT, ET AL. v. BERNZOMATIC CORP., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:16!00848
Northern District of Illinois
BAILEY v. BERNZOMATIC, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:16!07548
District of South Carolina
LOFTON v. IRWIN INDUSTRIAL TOOL COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:17!01358
-16-
Case MDL No. 2291 Document 43 Filed 02/15/18 Page 19 of 20
RULE 11.1: HEARING SESSIONS AND ORAL ARGUMENT
(a) Schedule. The Panel shall schedule sessions for oral argument and consideration ofother matters as desirable or necessary. The Chair shall determine the time, place and agenda foreach hearing session. The Clerk of the Panel shall give appropriate notice to counsel for all parties.The Panel may continue its consideration of any scheduled matters.
(b) Oral Argument Statement. Any party affected by a motion may file a separatestatement setting forth reasons why oral argument should, or need not, be heard. Such statementsshall be captioned “Reasons Why Oral Argument Should [Need Not] Be Heard” and shall be limitedto 2 pages.
(i) The parties affected by a motion to transfer may agree to waive oral argument. The Panel will take this into consideration in determining the need for oral argument.
(c) Hearing Session. The Panel shall not consider transfer or remand of any actionpending in a federal district court when any party timely opposes such transfer or remand withoutfirst holding a hearing session for the presentation of oral argument. The Panel may dispense withoral argument if it determines that:
(i) the dispositive issue(s) have been authoritatively decided; or (ii) the facts and legal arguments are adequately presented and oral argument would not significantly aid the decisional process.
Unless otherwise ordered, the Panel shall consider all other matters, such as a motion forreconsideration, upon the basis of the pleadings.
(d) Notification of Oral Argument. The Panel shall promptly notify counsel of thosematters in which oral argument is scheduled, as well as those matters that the Panel will consider onthe pleadings. The Clerk of the Panel shall require counsel to file and serve notice of their intent toeither make or waive oral argument. Failure to do so shall be deemed a waiver of oral argument. Ifcounsel does not attend oral argument, the matter shall not be rescheduled and that party’s positionshall be treated as submitted for decision on the basis of the pleadings filed.
(i) Absent Panel approval and for good cause shown, only those parties to actions who have filed a motion or written response to a motion or order shall be permitted to present oral argument.
(ii) The Panel will not receive oral testimony except upon notice, motion and an order expressly providing for it.
(e) Duty to Confer. Counsel in an action set for oral argument shall confer separatelyprior to that argument for the purpose of organizing their arguments and selecting representatives topresent all views without duplication. Oral argument is a means for counsel to emphasize the keypoints of their arguments, and to update the Panel on any events since the conclusion of briefing.
(f) Time Limit for Oral Argument. Barring exceptional circumstances, the Panel shallallot a maximum of 20 minutes for oral argument in each matter. The time shall be divided amongthose with varying viewpoints. Counsel for the moving party or parties shall generally be heard first.
Case MDL No. 2291 Document 43 Filed 02/15/18 Page 20 of 20
Recommended