USAC Banner 728x90

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Defenses against being added as to MDL as tag-along

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Defenses against being added as to MDL as tag-along

    Ok guys, a lot has happened since the last time I have posted. I need advice on how to keep my case as a stand alone civil case. I do not want me case added to the MDL. I filed Opposition to the CTO and the defendant has not answered to my opposition yet and no hearing date has been set with the JPML. I want my case to be my own, because I started this case on my own and want to finish the same way. Please advise. I will post the opposition and memorandum to support it.

  • #2
    Re: Defenses against being added as to MDL as tag-along

    Before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

    MDL-2100

    In Re Yasmin (Drospirenone), Marketing, Sales Practices, and Product Liability Litigation

    BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO VACATE
    THE CONDITIONAL TRANSFER ORDER

    Plaintiff Maryam T Bennett Et. Al. Moves pursuant to Rule 7.4, R.P.J.P.M.L., 199 F.R.D. 425, 433-36(2001), to vacate the Panel's order conditionally transferring its action to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois under 28 U.S.C. 1407.

    BACKGROUND OF THE LITIGATION

    2. Plaintiff Maryam T Bennett filed her lawsuit Case No. 2:13-cv-00112 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on May 28, 2013, alleging violations of (1)STRICT LIABILITY O.C.G.A. § 51-1-11, (2) BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY O.C.G.A. § 11-2-313, (3) BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY O.C.G.A. § 11-2-314, (4) FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT O.C.G.A. §51-6-2, & (5) CONSUMER PROTECTION LAWS O.C.G.A. §§ 10-1-372. Plantiff(s) and claimed among other things, that the Defendant had defrauded her and because of their unethical practices she has to suffer symptoms related to gallbladder disease for the duration of her life.

    3. On June 10, 2013 Defendant (Bayer) pursuant to Rule 7.1(a) of the Rule Of Procedures of the Judicial Panel on Mulitdistrict Lititgation of a tag-along-action in MDL-2100

    4. On June 13, 2013 Plaintiff Maryam T Bennett sent Notice of Opposition to Conditional Transfer Order based on the fact the only plaintiff involved in the action that was brought forth on May 28, 2013 is Maryam T Bennett Et. Al. Seeking relief for herself and her family. The Plaintiff brought this case as a stand alone action and wishes for it to remain so.

    FACTUAL AND LEGAL BASIS FOR VACATING
    THE CONDITIONAL TRANSFER

    5. The Plantiff Request that the Panel vacate the conditional transfer order and allow the case
    to remain in the Northern District of Georgia as this tag-along-action will inconvenince and could possibly add extra cost and undue stress to the Plaintiff.

    6. Additionally the delay that will likely come about due to the transfer is unneccessary and will only serve to prolong proceedings.




    7. The Conditional Transfer Order will not promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation.

    8. While the transferee court could decide the Plaintiff's complaint, The Plaintiff feels that District Judge Richard W. Story will be more familiar with the jusidicstional Law in the Northern Distict of Georgia than a District Court in Illinois.

    9. The Plaintiff feels in this case, the transferee judge's familiarity with MDL-2100 litigation as a whole in no way furthers the expeditious resolution of this action.

    10. With no disrepect intended to this Panel or the Judge prosiding over MDL-2100 the Plaintiff feels that transfering this case as a tag-along-action will lead to a less expeditious resolution of this matter which will only serve to prolong the case and adding addtional cost to the judical system as well as the plaintiff which can proof to be wasteful and unpractical for all involved.

    11. This case, a private civil action (not a class action), contains no facts or circumstances concerning the plaintiff that are common to plaintiffs in cases already transferred, or awaiting transfer, to MDL 2100. Same or different legal theory supporting actions against defendant(s) is not "common question of fact" such as to rationalize MDL transfer.

    12. Denial of pro se litigant's opposition to the transfer of her Case No. 2:13-cv-00112 to MDL 2100 may result in prejudice, delay and/or denial of due process requiring expensive and time consuming interlocutory appeal by plaintiff to the United States Court of Appeals. Potential for these types of prejudice, delay and/or denial of due process after transfer of this case to MDL-2100 is not reasonably evaluated as minimal.

    Conclusion

    13. The conditional transfer of this case to the MDL-2100 should be vacated, because the Plaintiff feels Judget Story is best situated to make this decision. Thus, the Plaintiff feels these is nothing to be gained by transferring this action to be included in MDL-2100 as such action will only delay resolution of this case. Thank you for your time and consideration of my notice of opposition.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Defenses against being added as to MDL as tag-along

      I wish to inform you that the notice of opposition to the CTO must be followed within 15 days by a motion to vacate the CTO and a brief supporting the motion. Further, failing to file timely the required motion
      and brief will be deemed as withdrawal of the notice of opposition.

      AFF

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Defenses against being added as to MDL as tag-along

        You have an uphill motion for the court will come back with "economies of litigation" where a class action suit is pending with essentially the same defendant and set of facts.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Defenses against being added as to MDL as tag-along

          Originally posted by AFFA View Post
          I wish to inform you that the notice of opposition to the CTO must be followed within 15 days by a motion to vacate the CTO and a brief supporting the motion. Further, failing to file timely the required motion
          and brief will be deemed as withdrawal of the notice of opposition.

          AFF
          I have filed the notice of opposition to the CTO as well as a motion to vacate and a brief in support of it within days of getting the notice of CTO so that is not the issue. I posted the motion to vacate in this post to show what I have done.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Defenses against being added as to MDL as tag-along

            Ok I used this to argue my point Lexecon Inc. v. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, 523 U.S. 26 (1998)

            In an opinion authored by Associate Justice David H. Souter, the Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit and held that under the multi-district litigation statute, the transfer of an action for coordinated multidistrict pretrial proceedings did not authorize the transferree judge to transfer the case to himself or herself for the actual trial. Rather, the statute requires that when all pretrial proceedings are completed, the action must be sent back ("remanded") for trial in the district where it was originally filed. Therefore, the jury trial of Lexecon's claims against Milberg Weiss should have taken place in Chicago rather than Los Angeles, and the verdict rendered in Los Angeles was invalid.
            The Court also rejected Milberg Weiss's argument that even if the jury trial had taken place in the wrong venue, this was a harmless error that should not result in reversal. The Court concluded that trying a case in the wrong district, over a party's express objection, was not harmless.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Defenses against being added as to MDL as tag-along

              I wish to inform you that the notice of opposition to the CTO must be followed within 15 days by a motion to vacate the CTO and a brief supporting the motion. Further, failing to file timely the required motion
              and brief will be deemed as withdrawal of the notice of opposition.
              GuL

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Defenses against being added as to MDL as tag-along

                Thank you BlackRose! I actually got the order today on my motion to vacate. It was denied, it was denied because they did not allow oral arguments nor did they add the supplemental information I sent in regards to why the CTO would be moot, because MDL litigation is for pretrial and discovery. I filed a motion for summary judgment which means that I forwent the need for pretrial and discovery. Once pretrial and discovery ends, by law the case is remanded back to the court of initial filing. Due to the fact that I filed a motion for summary judgment, my case no longer qualifies to be added to the MDL. These are the grounds I used to argue for reconsideration. I asked for an expedited motion so, I will see how that goes.

                LOL In the mean time, I have been reading, eating and breathing the law and its workings. So much so when I file my papers in person the clerk asks me if I have a legal background. I have come a long way since I started this journey and I am looking forward to seeing the conclusion. Win or lose what I have learned from this experience has been worth it!!

                Comment

                Previously entered content was automatically saved. Restore or Discard.
                Auto-Saved
                Stick Out Tongue :p Smile :) Mad :mad: Wink ;) Frown :( Big Grin :D Confused :confused: Embarrassment :o Roll Eyes (Sarcastic) :rolleyes: Cool :cool: EEK! :eek:
                x

                the color of a blueberry is... (write the answer twice with an "@" between the words)

                widgetinstance 213 (Related Topics) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                Working...
                X