Case 3:19-md-02913-WHO Document 1 Filed 10/02/19 Page 1 of 3
`
`UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL
`on
`MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
`
`IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC., MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES,
`AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION
`
`MDL No. 2913
`
`TRANSFER ORDER
`
`Before the Panel: Common defendant Juul Labs, Inc. (JLI) moves under 28 U.S.C. § 1407
`to centralize this litigation in the Northern District of California or the District of New Jersey. The
`litigation consists of the ten actions listed on the attached Schedule A, five in the Northern District
`of California, two in the Middle District of Alabama, and one each in the Middle District of Florida,
`the Southern District of Florida, and the Southern District of New York. The Panel has been notified
`of more than forty potentially-related actions. 1
`
`The actions in this litigation involve allegations that JLI has marketed its JUUL nicotine
`delivery products in a manner designed to attract minors, that JLI’s marketing misrepresents or omits
`that JUUL products are more potent and addictive than cigarettes, that JUUL products are defective
`and unreasonably dangerous due to their attractiveness to minors, and that JLI promotes nicotine
`addiction. The actions include both putative class actions and individual personal injury cases. In
`the briefing to the Panel, a number of responding plaintiffs argued that the Panel should create two
`MDLs – one for the putative class actions in the Northern District of California, and a second for the
`individual actions in the District of New Jersey. The plaintiffs who first advocated that position
`2
`stated at oral argument that they now support centralization of all actions in a single MDL. None
`of the other plaintiffs who filed briefs in favor of a two-MDL approach presented oral argument. All
`other responding parties support centralization of all related actions in one MDL, but they disagree
`on an appropriate transferee district. Suggested districts include the Northern District of California,
`the Eastern District of Louisiana, the District of Maryland, and the District of New Jersey.
`
`On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing session held, we find that these actions
`involve common questions of fact, and that centralization – of all actions – in the Northern District
`of California will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and
`efficient conduct of this litigation. These actions share multiple factual issues concerning the
`development, manufacture, labeling, and marketing of JUUL products, and the alleged risks posed
`
`These and any other related actions are potential tag-along actions. See Panel Rules
`1
`1.1(h), 7.1, and 7.2.
`
`Plaintiffs in three tag-alongs filed a brief requesting separate centralization of the
`2
`individual actions in either the Northern District of Illinois or the Eastern District of Wisconsin.
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-md-02913-WHO Document 1 Filed 10/02/19 Page 2 of 3
`
`-2-
`
`by use of those products. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery, the possibility of
`inconsistent rulings on class certification, Daubert motions, and other pretrial matters, and conserve
`judicial and party resources.
`
`The proposal to create two MDLs is not well-taken. Given the substantial overlap in the core
`factual issues, parties, and claims, a single MDL will best achieve Section 1407’s purposes. The
`Panel frequently centralizes dockets comprising both class actions and individual cases. See, e.g.,
`In re Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Prods. Liab. Litig., 357 F. Supp. 3d 1391 (J.P.M.L. 2018)
`(centralizing litigation consisting of personal injury cases, class actions asserting medical monitoring
`and property damage claims, and actions by various governmental entities). As with those dockets,
`the transferee judge can use separate tracks or other appropriate pretrial techniques to accommodate
`any differences among the actions.
`
`We select the Northern District of California as the transferee district. JLI is headquartered
`in that district, and it represents that most of the key evidence and witnesses are located there. Five
`constituent actions, including the first-filed case, are pending in the Northern District of California,
`as are several tag-alongs. Judge William H. Orrick III, to whom we assign the litigation, is an
`experienced transferee judge. He has been presiding over most of the California actions since they
`were filed and already has ruled on two motions to dismiss. We are confident that he will steer this
`litigation on a prudent course.
`
`IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the actions listed on Schedule A and pending outside
`the Northern District of California are transferred to the Northern District of California, and, with
`the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable William H. Orrick III for coordinated or
`consolidated pretrial proceedings.
`
` PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
`
`
` Sarah S. Vance
` Chair
`
`Lewis A. Kaplan
`R. David Proctor
`Karen K. Caldwell
`
`Ellen Segal Huvelle
`Catherine D. Perry
`Nathaniel M. Gorton
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-md-02913-WHO Document 1 Filed 10/02/19 Page 3 of 3
`
`IN RE: JUUL LABS, INC., MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES,
`AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION
`
`MDL No. 2913
`
`SCHEDULE A
`
`Middle District of Alabama
`
`WEST v. JUUL LABS, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:19-00505
`HELMS v. JUUL LABS, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:19-00527
`
`Northern District of California
`
`COLGATE, ET AL. v. JUUL LABS, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:18-02499
`Y., ET AL. v. JUUL LABS, INC., C.A. No. 3:18-06776
`VISCOMI, ET AL. v. JUUL LABS, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:18-06808
`ZAMPA v. JUUL LABS, INC., C.A. No. 3:19-02466
`SWEARINGEN, ET AL. v. JUUL LABS, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:19-04424
`
`Middle District of Florida
`
`NESSMITH, ET AL. v. ALTRIA GROUP, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 8:19-00884
`
`Southern District of Florida
`
`SHAPIRO, ET AL. v. ALTRIA GROUP, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 0:19-61548
`
`Southern District of New York
`
`D.P. v. JUUL LABS, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 7:18-05758
`
`