Class Action Article

  • Talcum Powder Ovarian Cancer Lawsuits: Lawyers Filing Ovarian Cancer Lawsuits For Baby Powder Talcum Powder Ovarian Cancer Lawsuits Do You Want To File A Baby Powder Cancer Lawsuit? Studies show that talcum-based powder can  cause ovarian cancer in women who have used it for ...

Class Action News

  • Dr Levy Class Action Lawsuit: Were You A Gynecological Patient Of Dr Levy? Do You Want To Join The Dr. Levy Class Action? $190 Million Settlement For Patients Dr Levy Calls Action lawsuit Filing  Dr. Nikita Levy had  an obstetrics and gynecology pr...

Drug Class Actions

Medical Device Lawsuits

  • Zimmer NexGen Knee Replacement Class Action Lawyers: NexGen Knee Replacement Lawyers For Failure And Complications What  Are The Complications of Zimmer NexGen Knee Replacements?  Early failure and replacement of the device Loosening of artificial knee Knee or joint pain ...

MDL Updates, Levaquin Lawsuits, Tendon Rupture, Levaquin Lawyers

Written by lisaspitzer on . Posted in Class Action Articles, Multidistrict Lawsuit News

Levaquin lawyers filing Tendon rupture danage lawsuits for Levaquin.

Anthony Zannella, et al. v. Johnson & Johnson, et al., )
E.D. Missouri, C.A. No. 4:12-1407 ) MDL No. 1943
Before the Panel: Pursuant to Panel Rule 7.1, plaintiffs move to vacate our order
conditionally transferring this action (Zannella) to MDL No. 1943. Defendants Johnson & Johnson;
Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceutical Research & Development,
LLC oppose the motion.
After considering all argument of counsel, we find that Zannella shares questions of fact with
actions in this litigation previously transferred to the District of Minnesota, and that transfer of this
action to MDL No. 1943 will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just
and efficient conduct of this litigation. Plaintiffs do not dispute that this action shares questions of
fact with MDL No. 1943. Like many of the already-centralized actions, Zannella involves factual
questions arising from allegations that the antibiotic Levaquin causes tendon rupture and that the
warnings provided by defendants informing Levaquin users of this risk were inadequate. See In re:
Levaquin Prods. Liab. Litig., 560 F. Supp. 2d 1384 (J.P.M.L. 2008).
In support of their motion to vacate, plaintiffs argue that this action was improperly removed
and plaintiffs’ motion to remand to state court is pending. The Panel has often held that jurisdictional
issues do not present an impediment to transfer, as plaintiffs can present such arguments to the
transferee judge. See, e.g., In re: Prudential Ins. Co. 1 of Am. Sales Practices Litig., 170 F. Supp.
2d 1346, 1347-48 (J.P.M.L. 2001).
1 Moreover, under Panel Rule 2.1(d), the pendency of a conditional transfer order does not
limit the pretrial jurisdiction of the court in which the subject action is pending. Between the date a
remand or other motion is filed and the date the Panel finalizes transfer of the action to the MDL, a
court wishing to rule upon that motion generally has adequate time to do so.
Case MDL No. 1943 Document 455 Filed 12/11/12 Page 1 of 2

Tags: , , , , ,