United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation Court Cases

Search
  1. In Re Eli Lilly & Co.(cephalexin Monohydrate) (1978)

    Before JOHN MINOR WISDOM[*], Chairman, and EDWARD WEINFELD[*], EDWIN A. ROBSON[*], JOSEPH S. LORD, III, STANLEY A. WEIGEL, ANDREW A. CAFFREY and ROY W. HARPER, Judges of the Panel.


    Court: United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation Docket: 326
  2. In Re Plumbing Fixture Cases (1968)

    After a hearing on August 8, 1968, on September 13, 1968, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, under Section 1407, Title 28, U.S.C., ordered the transfer to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania of 37 related multidistrict civil treble damage antitrust actions, pending in seven other districts, and assigned them to the Honorable John W. Lord, Jr., District Judge, 295 F.Supp. 33.


    Court: United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation Docket: 3
  3. In Re Multi-Piece Rim Products, Etc. (1979)

    Before JOHN MINOR WISDOM, Chairman, and EDWARD WEINFELD[*], EDWIN A. ROBSON[*], STANLEY A. WEIGEL, ANDREW A. CAFFREY[*], ROY W. HARPER, and CHARLES R. WEINER, Judges of the Panel.


    Court: United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation Docket: 362
  4. In Re Asbestos Products Liability Litigation (No. Vi) (1991)

    Before JOHN F. NANGLE, Chairman, S. HUGH DILLIN,[*] MILTON POLLACK,[*] LOUIS H. POLLAK, HALBERT O. WOODWARD, ROBERT R. MERHIGE, Jr., and WILLIAM B. ENRIGHT, Judges of the Panel.


    Court: United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation Docket: MDL No. 875
  5. In Re Silica Products Liability Litigation (2004)

    Since Rule 13 took effect last year, 453 plaintiffs have filed 71 lawsuits involving 158 defendants, alleging injurious exposure to silica. The suits are pending in 55 district courts in 20 counties. Six defendants in these cases have filed a motion asking this panel to appoint a pretrial judge pursuant to Rule 13.[1] The motion is opposed by all the plaintiffs and by 11 defendants. For the reasons stated in this opinion, a majority of the panel has granted the motion and appointed a pretrial [...]

    Court: United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation Docket: 04-0606
  6. In Re Mortgage Electronic Regist. Systems (Mers) (2009)

    Before ROBERT L. MILLER, JR., Acting Chairman, JOHN G. HEYBURN II, Chairman[*], KATHRYN H. VRATIL[*], DAVID R. HANSEN, W. ROYAL FURGESON, JR., FRANK C. DAMRELL, JR., DAVID G. TRAGER[*], Judges of the Panel.


    Court: United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation Docket: MDL No. 2119
  7. In Re Wireless Telephone Radio Frequency Emissions (2001)

    This litigation presently consists of four actions: one action each in the Eastern District of Louisiana, the District of Maryland, the Southern District of New York and the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Before the Panel is a motion by certain telecommunications defendants,[1] pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, to centralize the actions in either the District of Maryland, Eastern District of Louisiana or Eastern District of Pennsylvania for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.[2] [...]

    Court: United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation Docket: MDL-1421
  8. In Re Ad Valorem Tax Litigation (2006)

    Rule 13 authorizes this MDL panel to transfer "related" cases from different trial courts to a single pretrial judge if transfer will (1) serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and (2) promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. See TEX. R. JUD. ADMIN. 13.3. Several companies in the Valero corporate family (Valero) have asked the panel to assign one judge to handle the pretrial phase of numerous ad valorem tax suits. Valero has challenged the valuation of its [...]

    Court: United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation Docket: 06-0095
  9. In Re Hurricane Rita Evacuation Bus Fire (2006)

    Before us is a motion to appoint a pretrial judge for six lawsuits, pending in two counties, which arise from one common incident. For the reasons stated below, we grant the motion without an oral hearing. See rule 13.3(k). A pretrial judge has been appointed by separate order.


    Court: United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation Docket: 05-1073
  10. In Re Brand-Name Prescription Drugs Antitrust Lit. (2003)

    This matter is before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on the motion of various defendants [1] to vacate a conditional remand order (CRO), dated July 3, 2002, in which the Panel conditionally remanded the remaining Robinson-Patman Act claims in the seventeen actions listed in Appendix A to the district courts in which they were originally brought (and from which they previously had been transferred). For the reasons elucidated below, the Panel orders that the claims at issue, with [...]

    Court: United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation Docket: 997
  11. In Re Vanderbilt Mortg. and Finance, Inc. (2005)

    On February 23, 2005, we issued our order denying the Motion to Transfer of Related Cases to Pretrial Court filed by Vanderbilt Mortgage and Finance, Inc. This opinion sets out the basis for that decision.


    Court: United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation Docket: 05-0076
  12. In Re Prudential Ins. Co. of America Sales Pract. (2001)

    Before the Panel is a motion brought, pursuant to Rule 7.4, R.P.J .P.M.L., 199 F.R.D. 425, 435-36 (2001), by plaintiff in a Western District of Texas action (Uresti) to vacate the Panel's order conditionally transferring the action to the District of New Jersey for inclusion in the centralized pretrial proceedings occurring there in this docket before Judge Alfred M. Wolin. Defendant, The Prudential Insurance Company of America (Prudential), supports transfer of Uresti.


    Court: United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation Docket: MDL-1061
  13. In Re Janus Mut. Funds Inv. Litigation (2004)

    Before the Panel are seven dockets involving market timing/late trading allegations primarily against six different families of mutual funds.[1] In six dockets — MDL-1576 (Janus), MDL-1577 (Strong), MDL-1582 (Bank One), MDL-1585 (Bank of America), MDL-1590 (Putnam) and MDL-1591 (Alliance)-various plaintiff and/or defendant movants in each docket[2] seek centralization of the actions now before the Panel[3] and later-filed related actions under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 on a fund-by-fund basis — [...]

    Court: United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation Docket: MDL-1576, 1577, 1582, 1585, 1586, 1590, 1591. Nos. 1:03-1798, 1:03-1817, 1:03-1847, 1:03-1857, 1:03-1871, 1:03-1884, 1:03-1909, 2:03-4221
  14. In Re Zyprexa Products Liability Litigation (2004)

    This litigation currently consists of the six actions listed on the attached Schedule A and pending, respectively, in the Central District of California, the Eastern District of Kentucky, the Western District of Louisiana, the Middle District of North Carolina, the Northern District of Ohio, and the Eastern District of Tennessee.[1] Before the Panel is a motion, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, brought by defendant Eli Lilly and Company (Lilly) for coordinated or consolidated proceedings of [...]

    Court: United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation Docket: 1596
  15. In Re Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc. (2009)

    Before J. FREDERICK MOTZ, Acting Chairman, JOHN G. HEYBURN II, Chairman[*], ROBERT L. MILLER, JR., KATHRYN H. VRATIL, DAVID R. HANSEN[*] W. ROYAL FURGESON, JR. FRANK C. DAMRELL, JR.[*], Judges of the Panel.


    Court: United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation Docket: MDL No. 2017
  16. In Re Silicone Gel Breast Implants Prod. L. Lit. (1992)

    The record before us suggests that more than a million women have received silicone gel breast implants. Since the Food and Drug Administration held highly publicized hearings a few months ago about the safety of this product, a rush to the courthouse has ensued, although some litigation concerning the product has periodically been filed in the federal courts in the last several years.


    Court: United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation Docket: 926
  17. In Re South African Apartheid Litigation (2002)

    This litigation currently consists of two actions in the Southern District of New York and one action in the District of New Jersey.[1] Plaintiffs in the three actions move the Panel, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, for centralization of the litigation in the Southern District of New York. Defendants Amdahl Corporation; Citigroup Inc.; Citicorp; Citibank, N.A.; Commerzbank AG; Dresdner Bank AG; Credit Suisse Group; Deutsche Bank AG; General Motors Corp.; IBM Corp.; Mobil Corp.; UBS AG; and [...]

    Court: United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation Docket: 1499
  18. In Re Smith Patent Litigation (1976)

    Joseph F. Smith operates a machine shop in Greensboro, North Carolina, and is the holder of United States Patent No. 3,180,074, which relates to a high-speed, false twist spindle apparatus. Such a spindle is apparently useless until included as part of a textile yarn processing machine, typically referred to as a false twist machine. In practice, these machines are utilized to convert synthetic yarn, such as nylon, into a form desired by knitters or weavers.


    Court: United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation Docket: 232
  19. In Re Bear Stearns Companies Inc. Sec., Deriv. (2008)

    Before the entire Panel[*]: Defendants The Bear Stearns Companies Inc. (Bear Stearns) and Alan D. Schwartz have moved, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings of the actions listed on Schedule A in the Southern District of New York. The defendants' motion encompasses fourteen actions in the Southern District of New York and one action in the Eastern District of New York.[1] Plaintiffs in three Southern District of New York actions support transfer of [...]

    Court: United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation Docket: MDL No. 1963
  20. In Re Dept. of Veterans Affairs (Va) Data Theft Litigation (2006)

    This litigation currently consists of one action each in the District of District of Columbia, the Eastern District of Kentucky, and the Eastern District of New York. Defendants[1] move the Panel, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, for an order centralizing this litigation in the District of District of Columbia. Plaintiffs in the District of District of Columbia action support defendants' motion. Plaintiffs in the Eastern District of Kentucky action and the Eastern District of New York action [...]

    Court: United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation Docket: MDL-1796

1 of 57 Page(s)

Page:
  1. 2
  2. 3
  3. 4
  4. 5