## Facts

- Thirteen federal personal-injury product-liability actions alleged that shoulder pain pumps and/or anesthetic drugs used with those pumps caused glenohumeral chondrolysis.
- The actions were pending in multiple districts, including six in the District of Oregon and single actions in seven other districts.
- Plaintiffs in several actions moved under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to centralize the cases for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings in the District of Oregon.
- Other plaintiffs supported centralization, though some proposed alternative transferee districts.
- All responding defendants opposed centralization; if ordered, many preferred the Eastern District of Kentucky or Northern District of Illinois.
- The cases involved multiple pain-pump manufacturers and multiple pharmaceutical manufacturers, with limited defendant overlap across actions and differences in the products and drugs at issue.

## Issues

1. Whether transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 would serve the convenience of parties and witnesses and further the just and efficient conduct of thirteen chondrolysis-related product-liability actions, warranting centralized pretrial proceedings in a single district.

## Decision

- The JPML denied the motion to centralize under 28 U.S.C. § 1407.
- The Panel found that centralization would not, at that time, serve party and witness convenience or advance just and efficient conduct.
- The Panel concluded that common questions were limited because the actions implicated different pumps, different anesthetic drugs, and different defendants, with most cases not sharing the same defendants.
- The Panel determined that individualized factual issues (including patient histories, treating physicians, surgical procedures, and product-specific causation) would predominate over shared issues.
- The Panel indicated that informal coordination and ordinary case-management tools could address any overlapping discovery needs without creating an MDL.

## Legal Principles

- Transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 is appropriate only when centralization will (1) serve the convenience of parties and witnesses and (2) promote the just and efficient conduct of the actions.
- Where actions involve many different products and manufacturers, limited overlap among defendants, and substantial case-specific causation and liability issues, the expected efficiencies of centralization may be insufficient to justify an MDL.
- When the number of actions is modest and common issues are limited, informal inter-district coordination and standard pretrial management can be adequate alternatives to § 1407 centralization.
- A denial of centralization may be based on current conditions, leaving open the possibility that later developments (such as more filings or greater demonstrated commonality) could alter the § 1407 analysis.

## Conclusion

The JPML refused to create an MDL for shoulder pain pump–chondrolysis cases because differences in products, drugs, defendants, and individualized proof issues outweighed any shared factual questions, making centralized pretrial proceedings inefficient at that time.


In re Shoulder Pain Pump-Chondrolysis Prods. Liab. Litig., 571 F. Supp. 2d 1367 (J.P.M.L. 2008)