In re Benicar (Olmesartan) Products Liability Litigation
Opinion of the Court
TRANSFER ORDER
Before the Panel: Plaintiff in an action {Johnson) pending in the Northern District of Ohio moves under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to centralize this litigation in that district. The litigation consists of the fifteen actions listed on Schedule A.
All responding plaintiffs support centralization, although there is some disagreement concerning the choice of an appropriate transferee district. Most plaintiffs support selection of the Northern District of Ohio, but other plaintiffs suggest the Northern District of Alabama, the Central District of California, the Northern District of California, the Southern District of
This litigation involves allegations that taking Benicar or its sister drugs (Benicar HCT and Azor)
In opposing centralization, defendants argue that each of the involved cases will turn on unique, plaintiff-specific issues, including, for example, the subject plaintiffs medical history and the treatment decisions made by that plaintiffs physician. This argument is not convincing. As we previously have observed, “[ajlmost all injury litigation involves questions of causation that are case-and plaintiff-specific. [Such] differences are not an impediment to centralization where common questions of fact predominate.” In re: Xarelto (Rivaroxaban) Prods. Liab. Litig., 65 F.Supp.3d 1402, 1403, 2014 WL 7004048, at *1 (J.P.M.L. Dec. 12, 2014).
Defendants also argue that informal coordination among the involved courts and counsel is preferable to creation of an MDL. But there are now more than 35 actions pending in 23 districts. Even without considering the possibility of additional actions, the present number of involved cases and districts is sufficient to warrant centralization, especially given the complexity of the issues involved and the likelihood of at least some foreign discovery.
Finally, defendants contend that creation of an MDL will “create[ ] the potential to encourage the filing of new copycat cases without diligent efforts to ensure the viability of claims, in an attempt to gain leverage based on a large volume of cases.” We have rejected essentially this same argument in the past,
On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing session held, we find that the actions listed on Schedule A involve common questions of fact, and that centralization will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. As mentioned, these actions share factual issues arising from allegations that taking Benicar, Benicar HCT, or Azor may cause serious gastrointestinal injury. Issues concerning the development, manufacture, regulatory approval, labeling, and marketing of the drugs thus are common to all actions. Centralization will eliminate du-plicative discovery, prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings on Daubert and other issues, and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the actions listed on Schedule A and pending outside the District of New Jersey are transferred to the District of New Jersey, and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Robert B. Kugler for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.
SCHEDULE A
MDL No. 2606 — IN RE: BENICAR (OLMESARTAN) PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION
Southern District of California
AMBLER, ET AL. v. DAIICHI SANKYO, INC, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:14-01475
Central District of Illinois
DIRKSEN, ET AL. v. DAIICHI SANKYO, INC, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:14-03318
Southern District of Iowa
SCHEFFLER, ET AL. v. DAIICHI SANKYO, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 4:14-00450
Eastern District of Louisiana
VON EBERSTEIN, ET AL. v. DAIICHI SEIYAKU COMPANY, LTD., ET AL., C.A. No. 2:14-00089
BUJOL-BROWN v. DAIICHI SANKYO, INC, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:14-01762
District of Montana
VAN DYKE, ET AL. v. DAIICHI SANKYO, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:14-00137
Northern District of Ohio
LANEY v. DAIICHI SANKYO, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:14-02515
KUHN v. DAIICHI SANKYO, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:14-02781
CHARLTON v. DAIICHI SANKYO, INC, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:14-02786
JOHNSON v. DAIICHI SANKYO, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:14-02672
BAUGH v. DAIICHI SANKYO, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 4:14-02309
HUGLEY v. DAIICHI SANKYO, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 4:14-02787
BONNER v. DAIICHI SANKYO, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 5:14-02671
CHANGET v. DAIICHI SANKYO, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 5:14-02782
MCCLESKEY v. DAIICHI SANKYO, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 5:14-02784
. The Panel has been informed of 23 additional related federal actions. Those actions and any other related federal actions are potential tag-along actions. See Panel Rules 1.1(h), 7.1, and 7.2.
. Daiichi Sankyo, Inc., Daiichi Sankyo U.S. Holdings Inc., Forest Research Institute, Inc., Forest Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Forest Laboratories, LLC.
. These drugs, all of which contain olmesar-tan medoxomil, are prescribed for treatment of high blood pressure.
. According to plaintiffs, Daiichi Sankyo, Ltd., researched and developed Benicar in Japan.
. E.g., In re: Cook Med., Inc., IVC Filters Mktg., Sales Practices & Prods. Liab. Litig., 53 F.Supp.3d 1379, 1381, 2014 WL 5318059, at *2 (J.P.M.L. Oct. 15, 2014).
. See, e.g., In re: Fresenius Granuflo/Naturalyte Dialysate Prods. Liab. Litig., 935 F.Supp.2d 1362, 1363 (J.P.M.L. 2013) (centralizing litigation in the District of Massachusetts, in part because of related state court litigation pending there).
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.