Case NM/2:20-cv-00262 Document 22 Filed 08/10/21 Page 1 of 5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL
`on
`MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` MDL No. 3006
`
`TRANSFER ORDER
`
`
`IN RE: TASIGNA (NILOTINIB) PRODUCTS
`LIABILITY LITIGATION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before the Panel: Plaintiff in the Southern District of Illinois Garland action moves under
`28 U.S.C. § 1407 to centralize this litigation involving atherosclerotic injuries associated with use
`of the chronic myeloid leukemia drug Tasigna (nilotinib) in the Southern District of Illinois or,
`alternatively, the District of New Jersey. Plaintiff’s motion included eighteen actions pending in
`twelve districts, as listed on Schedule A, as well as two potentially-related actions.1 Plaintiffs in
`all actions support the motion. Defendant Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. opposes centralization
`in favor of informal cooperation among the parties; alternatively, Novartis suggests centralization
`in the Middle District of Florida.
`
`After considering the argument of counsel,2 we find that centralization of these actions in
`
`the Middle District of Florida will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote
`the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. All actions can be expected to share factual
`questions arising from allegations that Novartis failed to appropriately warn of the risks that use
`of Tasigna may cause severe atherosclerotic injuries. Despite warning doctors and patients in
`Canada of the heightened risks of atherosclerotic-related conditions,3 plaintiffs contend that
`Novartis concealed its knowledge of Tasigna’s unreasonably dangerous risks from plaintiffs, other
`consumers, and the medical community in the U.S. All plaintiffs bring claims for strict products
`liability – failure to warn and negligence. Issues of general causation and Tasigna’s labeling and
`
`
`1 These actions, and any other related actions, are potential tag-along actions. See Panel Rules
`1.1(h), 7.1 and 7.2.
`
` 2
`
` In light of the concerns about the spread of COVID-19 virus (coronavirus), the Panel heard oral
`argument by videoconference at its hearing session of July 29, 2021. See Suppl. Notice of Hearing
`Session, MDL No. 3006 (J.P.M.L. July 12, 2021), ECF No. 27.
`
` 3
`
` The Canadian warnings reportedly were prominently displayed in a box entitled “Serious
`Warnings and Risks,” which directed health professionals to the Warnings and Precautions section.
`It warned that atherosclerotic-related conditions could result in death and that Tasigna-related
`peripheral arterial occlusive disease, “can be severe, rapidly evolving, and may involve more than
`one site. Peripheral arterial occlusive disease might require repeated revascularization procedures
`and can result in complications that may be serious such as limb necrosis and amputations.”
`
`

`

`Case NM/2:20-cv-00262 Document 22 Filed 08/10/21 Page 2 of 5
`
`-2-
`
`regulatory history appear common to all actions. Centralization offers substantial opportunity to
`streamline pretrial proceedings; reduce duplicative discovery and conflicting pretrial obligations;
`prevent inconsistent rulings on common Daubert challenges and summary judgment motions; and
`conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel and the judiciary.
`
`Novartis opposes centralization, arguing that there are too few actions to justify
`
`centralization and that informal cooperation is feasible. We are not persuaded by these arguments.
`The prospect for informally coordinating so many actions with differing schedules before so many
`different judges seems labor-intensive and inefficient. To date, eighteen actions and two potential
`tag-along actions are pending in thirteen different districts before nineteen judges. The number of
`actions appears likely to grow. The parties estimated at oral argument that there are approximately
`186 state court cases in New Jersey, which recently established a multi-county litigation docket
`for Tasigna litigation.4 Additionally, counsel for plaintiffs state that they are reviewing over two
`hundred potential new cases. While defendants are correct that we are “disinclined to take into
`account the mere possibility of future fillings in [its] centralization calculus,” In re Lipitor, 959 F.
`Supp. 2d 1375, 1376 (J.P.M.L. 2013), the fact that so many Tasigna cases have been filed recently
`in Novartis’s home state adds some credence to the prediction that more cases likely will be
`forthcoming.
`
`Novartis cites our past decisions denying centralization in favor of informal cooperation,
`
`but those decisions present distinguishable circumstances. In In re: Cymbalta (Duloxetine) Prods.
`Liab. Litig., 65 F. Supp. 3d 1393, 1394 (J.P.M.L. 2014), we denied centralization of allegations
`that defendant failed to warn users that discontinuing use of antidepressant Cymbalta allegedly
`causes various withdrawal symptoms. But that litigation involved actions with significantly
`different procedural postures – the three longest-pending actions were filed over a year before the
`remaining 22 actions and were nearing the conclusion of discovery. Id. Here, though most actions
`have been pending for over a year, no party asserts that discovery has concluded. Novartis also
`points to In re Sorin 3T Heater-Cooler Sys. Prod. Liab. Litig., 273 F. Supp. 3d 1357, 1358
`(J.P.M.L. 2017), but that litigation involved only sixteen cases pending in six districts, and ten of
`the actions were pending before a single judge in the District of South Carolina and were
`“proceeding in a coordinated fashion. Moreover, those ten actions were brought by just two groups
`of plaintiffs’ counsel. Of the remaining six actions, four were brought by the same plaintiffs’
`counsel, and the parties to those actions already are working successfully to minimize overlapping
`pretrial proceedings by, for example, sharing discovery produced in multiple actions.” Id. We
`also noted that “not a single party to any of the six actions pending outside the District of South
`Carolina supports centralization.” Id. Here, all plaintiffs, who are represented by two groups of
`counsel from three law firms, support centralization. Unlike in In re: Sorin, no cases – much less
`a majority of the pending cases – are proceeding in a coordinated fashion in a single district.
`
`Finally, Novartis argues that plaintiff-specific causation issues arising from diagnoses of
`
`atherosclerotic conditions in the Tasigna patient population are central to each action and best
`managed outside of an MDL. But “[a]lmost all personal injury litigation involves questions of
`causation that are plaintiff-specific. Those differences are not an impediment to centralization
`
`
`4 Centralization also facilitates coordination of the federal and state court actions.
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case NM/2:20-cv-00262 Document 22 Filed 08/10/21 Page 3 of 5
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`when common questions of fact are multiple and complex.” See, e.g., In re: Fluoroquinolone
`Prods. Liab. Litig., 122 F. Supp. 3d 1378, 1379 (J.P.M.L. 2015). Here, issues of general causation
`and discovery into Tasigna’s labeling and regulatory history, which may be international in scope,
`appear to be sufficiently complex to justify centralization.
`
`We are persuaded that the Middle District of Florida is the appropriate transferee district
`
`for these cases. More cases are pending in this district than any other district. The Middle District
`of Florida offers a convenient and readily accessible district that is underutilized as a transferee
`forum. By selecting Judge Roy Bale Dalton, we are selecting a jurist who is familiar with the
`contours of multidistrict litigation. We are confident that Judge Dalton will steer this litigation on
`a prudent course.
`
`
`IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the actions listed on Schedule A and pending outside
`the Middle District of Florida are transferred to the Middle District of Florida and, with the consent
`of that court, assigned to the Honorable Roy Bale Dalton for coordinated or consolidated
`proceedings with the actions pending there and listed on Schedule A.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
`
`
`
`
`
`_______________________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Karen K. Caldwell
` Chair
`
`
`Catherine D. Perry
`Matthew F. Kennelly
`Roger T. Benitez
`
`
`Nathaniel M. Gorton
`David C. Norton
`Dale A. Kimball
`
`

`

`Case NM/2:20-cv-00262 Document 22 Filed 08/10/21 Page 4 of 5
`
`
`
`
`IN RE: TASIGNA (NILOTINIB) PRODUCTS
`LIABILITY LITIGATION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` MDL No. 3006
`
`
`
`SCHEDULE A
`
`
`
`Western District of Arkansas
`
`
`
`BURKE v. NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS CORPORATION, C.A. No. 2:20−02032
`
`
`
`COLELLA v. NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS CORP, C.A. No. 3:20−00367
`
`
`
`TONGE v. NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS CORPORATION, C.A. No. 2:20−00168
`GIANCASPRO v. NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS CORPORATION,
`C.A. No. 3:20−00346
`MERCED, ET AL. v. NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS CORPORATION,
`C.A. No. 8:20−00587
`
`District of Connecticut
`
`Middle District of Florida
`
`Southern District of Illinois
`
`District of Maryland
`
`District of New Jersey
`
`District of New Mexico
`
`Southern District of New York
`
`
`
`
`GARLAND v. NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS CORPORATION, C.A. No. 3:20−00269
`
`
`
`WITT v. NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS CORPORATION, C.A. No. 1:20−01249
`
`
`
`GUSTIN, ET AL. v. NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS CORPORATION,
`
`C.A. No. 2:20−02753
`DEAN v. NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS CORPORATION, C.A. No. 2:20−02755
`
`
`
`HURD v. NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS CORPORATION, C.A. No. 2:20−00262
`
`
`
`LALLY v. NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS CORPORATION, C.A. No. 1:20−02359
`
`
`
`

`

`Case NM/2:20-cv-00262 Document 22 Filed 08/10/21 Page 5 of 5
`
`-A2-
`
`
`Middle District of North Carolina
`
`District of North Dakota
`
`
`
`
`DAVIS v. NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS CORPORATION, C.A. No. 1:20−01127
`
`
`
`POITRA v. NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS CORPORATION, C.A. No. 3:20−00123
`ISAACSON v. NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS CORPORATION, C.A. No. 3:21−00057
`
`
`
`CRAIG v. NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS CORPORATION, C.A. No. 2:20−01641
`PEDERSON v. NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS CORPORATION, C.A. No. 3:20−05216
`BECKER v. NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS CORPORATION, C.A. No. 3:20−05221
`
`
`
`SCHIMMING, ET AL. v. NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS CORPORATION,
`
`C.A. No. 2:21−00135
`
`Western District of Washington
`
`Eastern District of Wisconsin
`
`
`
`
`