Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In re Prempro Products Liability Litigation

January 16, 2007

IN RE: PREMPRO PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION
CAROL SUE KUHN, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS
v.
WYETH, ET AL DEFENDANTS
APRIL KRUEGER, ET AL PLAINTIFFS
v.
WYETH, ET AL. DEFENDANTS



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Wm. R.Wilson, Jr. United States District Judge

MDL Docket No. 4:03CV1507-WRW

SUGGESTION OF REMAND ORDER

Pending are Plaintiff Kuhn's Motion for Certification of a West Virginia Class (Doc. No. 938) and Motion to Certify Question of West Virginia Law to the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals (Doc. No. 1318), and Plaintiff Krueger's Motion to Certify Class of California Prempro Consumers (Doc. No. 939) and Motion to Strike Those Portions of Wyeth's Opposition to the California Class (Doc. No. 1320).

After reviewing the briefs and hearing oral argument, it seems that the transferor court is in the best position to rule on the class certification motions for these individual states.

Assuming a class were granted, I believe that it makes little sense for me to establish a class and then send the case back to California or West Virginia for that district judge to hear.

Additionally, the state of the law in both California and West Virginia is uncertain. If the case law of these states was unequivocal, I might be inclined to rule, but based on the current circumstances, I think it would be unwise for a judge sitting in Arkansas to interpret California and West Virginia law.

Considering these factors, I find as follows:

1. Common discovery and other coordinated pretrial proceedings have been completed for these cases. All remaining issues are case-specific, and best determined by the transferor court.

2. These cases will not benefit from further coordinated proceeding under MDL 1507, and are ready to be remanded to their respective transferor courts.

Under Rule 7.6 of the Rules of Procedure of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, this suggestion of remand is entered. The Clerk of the Court is directed to provide copies of this order to the Clerk of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation and the clerks of the transferor district courts.

All pending motions are MOOT.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 16th day of January, 2007.

20070116

© 1992-2007 VersusLaw ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.