Classified Class Action Blog

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact
  • Subscribe

MDL Litigation: Class and Complex Cases to Watch in 2018

December 22, 2017 by Carlton Fields

The Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation (“MDL Panel” or “Panel”) has transferred 97 putative class actions relating to the Equifax data breach to the Northern District of Georgia, where Equifax is headquartered. Judge Thomas Thrash, who previously handled the consolidated class actions relating to the Home Depot data breach, will preside over the actions. Eighty-five of the plaintiffs and Equifax supported this result, while the remaining plaintiffs proposed centralization in other federal district courts. Although certain plaintiffs proposed centralization in jurisdictions with plaintiff-friendly precedent on the issue of Article III standing in data breach cases, the Panel firmly rejected these arguments: “the Panel does not consider the possible implications with respect to standing or other potential rulings when it selects a transferee district.” Only one party – plaintiffs in one of 200-plus potential tagalongs – opposed centralization entirely. The Panel noted that actions by various financial institution plaintiffs were among the potential tagalong actions, and stated that any objections to the inclusion of those cases in centralized proceedings could be addressed by the Panel in the event of objections to conditional transfer.

The MDL Panel also consolidated 64 individual actions by various state and local government entities against manufacturers and distributors of opioid drugs for pretrial purposes in the Northern District of Ohio. The cases will proceed before Judge Dan Polster, who currently presides over two of the consolidated cases, and has recent experience presiding over MDL products liability cases. In granting the petitions for consolidation, the MDL Panel emphasized that the cases raised “common fact questions as to the allegedly improper marketing and widespread diversion of prescription opiates into various states, counties and cities across the nation.” Although the panel acknowledged that individual issues may arise in each action, the Panel stated the transferee court could address these by creating different tracks for particular parties or claims. The Panel also denied requests to delay transfer pending rulings on various motions to dismiss or remand. The Panel selected the Northern District of Ohio from among the various proposed transferee courts, as Ohio experienced a “significant rise in the number of opioid-related overdoses” in recent years and was relatively close to the headquarters of various defendants. As for the 115 potentially related actions – which encompass claims by consumers, hospitals, and third party payors – the Panel declined to speculate whether the MDL might evolve to include these additional parties and claims, stating that it could address those questions as needed through the conditional transfer process.

In re Equifax, Inc., Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, MDL No. 2800 (J.M.P.L. Dec. 6, 2017).

In re National Prescription Opiate Litigation, MDL No. 2804 (J.M.P.L. Dec. 5, 2017).

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

« Previous Article

Putative Class Member’s Spoliation of Evidence Disqualifies Him as a Class Representative

Next Article »

State of Louisiana, as Absent Class Member, Escapes CAFA Settlement Trap
Avatar

About Carlton Fields

Get Weekly Updates!

2020 Class Action Survey – Now Available!

DOWNLOAD NOW
Carlton Fields Logo A blog focused on the latest class action developments and trends by the attorneys of Carlton Fields.

Search

Topics

Industries/Practices
  • Construction
  • Consumer Finance & Banking
  • Food & Beverage
  • Health Care
  • Insurance
  • Labor, Employment & ERISA
  • Manufacturing & Products
  • Pharmaceutical
  • Privacy & Technology
  • Securities
  • Telecommunications

Substantive/Procedural
  • Arbitration
  • CAFA
  • Certification
    • Adequacy
    • Ascertainability
    • Commonality
    • Numerosity
    • Predominance
    • Superiority
    • Typicality
  • Decertification
  • Settlements
  • Standing
  • Striking of Class Allegations

Courts/Jurisdiction
  • Federal District Courts
  • Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal
  • United States Supreme Court
  • State Courts

Monthly Archives

Recent Articles

  • MDL Court Denies Class Certification of Proposed “NAS Babies” Class
  • What’s Good for Trial Is Good for Class Certification: Fifth Circuit Rules That Daubert Applies at Class Certification Stage
  • One Game, One Stadium: Eleventh Circuit Spikes Collateral Challenge to Tampa Bay Buccaneers Proposed Class Action Settlement

Get Weekly Updates!

Carlton Fields

  • carltonfields.com
  • Practices
  • Industries
  • Class Action Survey

Related Industries/Practices

  • National Class Actions
  • National Trial Practice
  • Appellate & Trial Support
  • Our Class Action Experience

Classified: The Class Action Blog

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact

Classified Logo
© 2014–2021 Carlton Fields, P.A. · Carlton Fields practices law in California as Carlton Fields, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Privacy Policy · Disclaimer

Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please contact us. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites. This site may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions.