United States District Court, N.D. California, San Francisco Division
IN RE VIAGRA SILDENAFIL CITRATE PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION MDL No. 2691 This Document Relates to ALL ACTIONS
[PROPOSED] PRETRIAL ORDER No. 5: PROCEDURES FOR
DIRECT FILING, MASTER PLEADINGS, AND SERVICE OF
HONORABLE RICHARD, SEEBORG UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
SCOPE OF ORDER
Applicability of Order. This Order applies
to all cases pending against Defendant Pfizer Inc.
(“Pfizer”) in MDL No. 2691 and to all actions
against Pfizer that have been or will in the future be
originally filed in, transferred to, or properly removed to
this Court and assigned thereto as part of this MDL No. 2691.
DIRECT FILING OF CASES IN MDL NO. 2691
Direct Filing Permitted. To promote
judicial efficiency and eliminate delays associated with the
transfer to this Court of cases filed in or removed to other
federal district courts, any Plaintiff whose case would be
subject to transfer to MDL No. 2691 may file his or her case
directly into MDL No. 2691 in the Northern District of
California, San Francisco.
Pfizer Shall Not Challenge Venue for Pretrial
Purposes. Each case filed directly into MDL No.
2691 by a Plaintiff who resides in a federal district other
than the Northern District of California will be filed into
MDL No. 2691 for the purposes of pretrial proceedings,
consistent with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation’s April 7, 2016 Transfer Order. Pfizer will
not challenge the venue of any action filed directly into MDL
No. 2691 for purposes of pretrial proceedings.
No Lexecon Waiver. For cases filed directly
into MDL No. 2691, the Parties preserve and do not waive any
and all rights under Lexecon Inc. v. Milberg Weiss,
523 U.S. 26 (1998) to have each case remanded to the district
of traditional venue for trial set forth in paragraph 10(e)
No Determination Regarding Jurisdiction or
Venue. The inclusion of any case in MDL No.
2691, whether such case was or will be filed originally or
directly in the Northern District of California, or
transferred or removed to the Northern District of
California, shall not constitute a determination by this
Court that jurisdiction or venue is proper in this district.
No Impact on Choice of Law. The fact that a
case was filed directly in MDL No. 2691 pursuant to this
Order will have no impact on choice of law, including the
statute of limitations that otherwise would apply to an
individual case had it been filed in another court and
removed and/or transferred to this Court.
Purpose of Master Pleadings. In light of
the number of Complaints filed to date and likely to be filed
in the future in MDL No. 2691, and the inefficiencies of
drafting those Complaints and individual Answers to those
Complaints, the Parties have agreed to the following
procedures for the use of Master Pleadings. Nothing in this
Order is intended to (or does) alter the applicable
provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the
Local Rules of this Court, except as otherwise provided
herein or in any subsequent Order.
Deadline for Master Complaint. On or before
September 9, 2016, the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee
(“PSC”) shall file in MDL No. 2691 a Master
Complaint on behalf of all Plaintiffs asserting claims in MDL
SHORT FORM COMPLAINTS
Content of Short Form Complaints. At the
same time the PSC files the Master Complaint, the PSC also
shall file as Exhibit 1 thereto a Master Short Form
Complaint, which shall be an abbreviated form that future
Plaintiffs will complete in lieu of filing new standalone
Complaints. All Short Form Complaints shall adopt the ...