## Facts

- The litigation concerned appetite suppressants fenfluramine (Pondimin) and dexfenfluramine (Redux), which were alleged to be linked to valvular heart disease.
- After an FDA advisory, the manufacturer withdrew the drugs from the market in 1997; widespread federal and state litigation followed.
- Federal cases were centralized in MDL No. 1203 in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, where the parties negotiated a nationwide class settlement.
- Separately, a Texas state court certified a statewide class (the Gonzalez class).
- The Gonzalez class representatives and their attorneys sought to conduct a coordinated, large-scale opt-out effort so class members could pursue the Texas action instead of participating in the federal settlement.
- The MDL court entered an order enjoining the Gonzalez attorneys from conducting mass solicitation or an organized campaign to opt out members of the Texas class from the federal settlement.
- The Gonzalez representatives and counsel filed an interlocutory appeal from the injunction.

## Issues

1. Whether the court of appeals had interlocutory jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) to review the MDL court’s order as an injunction.
2. Whether the MDL court had authority, including under the All Writs Act and its inherent powers, to enjoin a coordinated mass opt-out campaign that threatened administration of a nationwide class settlement.
3. Whether the injunction improperly interfered with the parallel Texas class action in violation of the Anti-Injunction Act or federal–state comity.

## Decision

- The Third Circuit affirmed the injunction order.
- The court held it had interlocutory appellate jurisdiction under § 1292(a)(1) because the order restrained specific conduct.
- The court held the MDL court acted within its authority to protect its jurisdiction over, and its ability to implement, the nationwide settlement.
- The court concluded the injunction fit within Anti-Injunction Act exceptions because it was necessary in aid of the federal court’s jurisdiction and to protect or effectuate its settlement-related judgments.
- The court emphasized the injunction did not eliminate individual class members’ ability to opt out; it restricted an organized, attorney-driven mass opt-out campaign.

## Legal Principles

- An order restraining specified conduct in connection with class settlement administration may be treated as an injunction reviewable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).
- Under the All Writs Act, a federal court overseeing complex consolidated litigation may issue orders necessary or appropriate to protect its jurisdiction and to administer and implement a class settlement.
- The Anti-Injunction Act permits federal injunctive relief that is (1) necessary in aid of the federal court’s jurisdiction or (2) needed to protect or effectuate the federal court’s judgments, even if the relief has practical effects on parallel state proceedings.
- A court may distinguish between preserving an individual’s right to opt out and restraining coordinated attorney conduct that threatens the functioning or stability of a settlement process.

## Conclusion

The Third Circuit upheld an MDL court’s injunction restricting a coordinated mass opt-out effort from a nationwide class settlement, finding the order reviewable on interlocutory appeal and justified as necessary to protect the federal court’s jurisdiction and settlement-related judgments without extinguishing individual opt-out rights.


In re Diet Drugs Prods. Liab. Litig., 282 F.3d 220 (3d Cir. 2002)