HomeMy WebLinkAbout94-00372
I
j;!
"
Ii'
d
~
}..
~\!
1/'
I
~j
~
II
<'I,
}!
\{i
I.:.'J
,
\~',
f !~
i#
.11
iIi,
,.'
1\
;j.I
I'
'iI
.
hVNTHIA H. MCGII and
KIN MCGill,
I
IN THE COURT or COMMON PLEAS
CUMBIRLAND COUNTY, PINNA.
tr
'I,
:1
Plaintiffa
v.
CIVIL AC~ION - LAW
,
i'
THE COOPER COMPANIES, INC., a
Oelawar. Corporation,
individually end aa aucceaaor
in inter.at to Netural Y sur9ical . din 9 LJ.
Specialtha, Inc. and A..thetech, NO. 3 '7). et~ 7 7
SCOTFOAM CORPORATION,
APPLIED SILICONE CORP., and
SAMIR J. SROUJI, M.D., and
COSMETIC SURGERY CEN~ER,
Detendanta JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
I
I
,'"
1\1
"
"
!
"
fl
\
I
I'
f
~~
,
i'l
.~OIT .OIK COMPLAINT
"
:'
(I
ii,
AND NOW, come. the plaintitt., CYNTHIA H. MoGEl and KEN
M~GEE, huaband and wite, by their attorney., SCHMID~ AND RONCA, P.C.,
and .et. torth a. tollow.,
\.
II
1
I,
)
II
PLAINTlrra
1. plaintitt i. CYNTHIA H. McGEE, an adult wo.an, who
re.ide. at the tOllowinq addre.s,
',\
,
1106 Granada Lane
Meohanic~burq, PA 17055
2. Plaintitt (huaband) ia KEN McGEE, an adult .ale, who
rea ide. at the above-oaptioned addrosa and olaim. damaqe. a. a r..ult
ot 10.. ot aon.ortium.
'I
I
I
I
1
O..I~'" KAMU'~OTQJI.. ~ .ILATID gOM'a,rl_
3. The following entitie. identified in Plaintiff., Fourth
Amended Maeter Complaint are named a. Defendant. and the allegation.
with regard to the.e entitie. in the Ma.ter Complaint ara adopted by
reterence.
I
"1;
I. ,
The cooper companie., Inc.
One Bridge Plaza
sixth Floor
Fort Lee, New Jer.ey 07024
Scottoam corporation
n/k/a 21 International HOlding., Inc,
1500 E. Second Street
Iddy.tone, PA 19022
Applied silicone Corporation
320 W. stanley Avenue
Ventura, CA 93001
DI.IHDAMT ..ALT. OARI '.OVID..,
4. The following health care provider. are named ,.
Defendant..
samir J. srouji, M.D.
3438 Trindle Road
camp Hill, PA 17011
COSME~IC SURGERY CEN~ER
3438 Trindle Road
camp Hill, PA 17011
OA.I .'101.10 1H70RMATIOH
5. De.crib. the .pecific implant product. u..d in the
Plaintiff'. medical treatment, including the name of the
2
'd.
,
,
\' .
~.
Ii'
,
"
,
I ~ ,
,
.\.
.,.
"
I"
..,'
I
,.
"
,.
"
,
i
,
!
'i
.;
~
manutacturer., brand number., lot number., and catalog number., it
known.
Dow corning
Fir.t surgery
Lot No. HH0636l1
cat. No. 993
Natural Y surgioal specialtie., Incorporated
Seconel Surgery
Cat. RIl - 7-2!le
Control No. 437036 - R
control No. 437037 - L
Mentor
Third surgery
Cat. No. 3!l4-2e07
Lot No. 6477!l
0..1 .'IOI.XO I..OaMaTXOM
6. To the extent reasonably known tor each proceelure in
which an implant wa. either in.erted or removeel .tate the elate of the
.urgery, the name anel address of the surgeon, and the name anel
aelelre.. of the ho.pital/clinio where the .urgery wae pertormeel.
Incluele any agency allegation. regarding the health care provieler.
that Plaintitf is making.
Date of surgery I
surgeon I
September 26, 1983
Firet sur9ary
Jame. A. Yate., M.D.
Granelview corporate Place
20e Grandview
camp Hill, PA 17011
Holy spirit Ko.pital
e03 North 21et street
camp Hill, PA 17011
Ko.pitall
3
"
"
1.
ID.
n.
o.
p.
q.
1'.
I.
t.
Dry mouth
Hail' 10..
Di.turbanoe in balanoe
Sleep di.turbanoe
Peraiatent low 9rade fever
la.y brui.ability
Night .welt.
Diffioulty in breathin9
Color ohlnqe. in tip. of tin9lr.
9.
CAUl" O. ACTIQM
on the ba.i. of the alleqation. in the Fourth Amended
Ma.t.r complaint, PlaintittC') rai.e the tOllowinq olaiID"
x
Ye.
X
Ye.
X
Ye.
X
Ye.
X
Y..
X
Ye.
X
Ye.
X
Y..
X
Ye.
\'
"
I,
1.:1
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Count I - Neqliqenoe Aqain.t
D.tendant Manutaoturer.
Count III - strict Product Liability
Aqain.t Defendant Manutacturer.
Count IV - Breach of Implied Warranty
Aqain.t Defendant Manutacturer.
Count V - Fraud, Deceit and Mi.repre.entation
Aqain.t Defendant Manutacturer.
Count VIII - Medioal Neqliqenoe end Ne91iqent
Ule ot Defective Product Aqain.t Defendant
Health Cue Prov'idera
Count IX - Fraud, Deceit and Mi.repre.entation
Aqain.t Detendant Health Care Provider.
Count X - Lack of J.nformed Con.ent Aqlin.t
Defendant Health Care Provider.
Count XII - Lo.. of con.ortium Aqain.t
All Dehndant.
Count XIII - outraqeou. Conduot
The Cooper companie., Inc.
Scottoam Corporation
Applied Silicone corporation
IS
x
Ye.
NO
Count XIX - Violation of state Unfair Trade
Praotioe. and Con.umer Proteotion Law Aqain.t
Defendant Manufaoturer.
aLAIM. AaAI.'~ .IL~.D aO.,AMII.
I
I
10. A. to tho.e manufacturer. and related companie. that
Plaintiff e.) have named aa Defendant., Plaintiff(.) incorporate any
Claim. for .ucoe..or liability that are rai.ed in the Fourth Amended
Ma.ter complaint and any amendment. thereto.
aOR'QaA~. .laLla.MQI aLAI.'
11. With permi..ion of the Court, Plaintiff hereby rai.e.
corporate nlqliqlncl claim. aqainst a Defendant ho.pital/olinic in a
Short Form Complaint. See pp. 32-33 of this Court'. September 7,
1993 Memorandum and Order of Court with re.pect to re.olution of
Defendant.' Preliminary Objection. to Plaintift.' Second Amended
Master Complaint.
At all time. herein relevant, Detendant BAHIR J. BROUJI,
M.D., wa. an employer, .ervant, and aqent of Detendant COSMETIC
SURGERY CEN~ER.
1'1
,
WHEREFORE, Plaintifte.) .eek recovery trom Defendant. a.
,
"
tollow.l
,
,
a.
General and compensatory damaqes in an amount in
exce.. of Fitty Thou.and Dollar. (.~o,OOO), exolu.ive
ot inter..t and CO.t.,
Punitive damaq.. a. allow.d by lawl
,,;,1
b.
6
o. co.t. ot thi. litiqation/ and
4.
such other and turther damaqe. and reliet .. thi.
Court .ay deem appropriate.
I;'
,'I
Re.peattully .ubmitted,
SCHMIDT ANI).
(~-
.--...........-.....
'(,
I
."
.1
By
Jame. 1\. nca
At~o t Law
At ne I.D. No. 2e631
2 lit e Straet
Har urq, PA 17101
(717 232-6300
Attorney. for Plaintiff
I.,
~ . I
)1,,1
1-,,'
I'
"
,
j', '
11
I'
"
"
Ii
ii,
1\ "
'"
I'
,\
1
I
I,
, ,
\"
I'
i'
1'1
11'1.
"
, ,
,
,
if
!'1,
I,r
,I
,\ 1
n ~
'i
" ,
I"
"
7
"
,
,
"
I
,aal'Jc.'IO. ,...D u,~ ....O..~
.,OWLIDG. AtD IKrO.Ma'IO. .U'~LI.D ~y CO~'.L
,.'1
I, CYN~HIA H. MCGill, that I all the Plaintiff in the
fore9oin9 action and that the attached Short Form COllplaint i. ba..d
upon the information which ha. been 9athered by IIY coun.el in
preparation of thi. law.uit. ~he language of the Short Porll
Complaint is that of coun.el and i. not mine. I have read the Short
Form Complaint and to the extent that it i. ba.ed upon information
which I have given to my coun.el, it i. true and correct to the be.t
of my knowledqe, information, and belief. To the extent that the
content. of the Short Form Complaint are that of coun.el, I have
relied upon coun.el in making thi. Verification.
I under.tand that intentional fal.e .tatement. hare in are
made .ubjeot to the penaltie. of 18 Pa.C.S. 84904 relating to un.worn
falsifioation. made to authoritie..
I
I
"
I
I'
"
,
I,
I
;+ ,
'~ L:j \'iqd
DArED!.:: \.....,',.
I '
/ .,
"
/,
,
J
"
,
I'
,
,\
!,
"
.,
I
\).
~ ,
,.
"
~'. ,.
I'll
,
COMMoNWEAvrH OP PENNHYLVAN[A,
COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND
In Tho Court of Common Plea8 of
Cumberl~nd County, Pennsylvania
No. 372 Civil Ter.m 1994
Complaint in Civil Action Law
/lOel Not ice
Cynthia H. McGee and Ken McGee
VH
The Cooper Companies, [nc., a DeLaware
Corporation, individuaLly and as Successor
in Interest to Natural Y Surgical
Bpecialt.ies, Inc. i.'Ind AeBthetech, Acotfoam
Corporation, Applied Silicone Corporation,
Bamir J. Brouji, M.D., and Cosmetic Aurgical
Center
Timothy Reitz, Deputy Sheriff, who being duly sworn according
t.o law, aays that on January 31, 1994 at 10146 o'clock A.M., E.B.T., he
served a true copy of the within Complaint in Civil Action Law and Notice,
in the above entitled action, upon the within named defendants, to wit!
Samir J. Arouji, M.D. and Coametic Surgery Center, by mak:lng known unto
Debbie Atumpf, Office Manager and ael\llt in charge, at 3438 Trinelle Roael,
Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, ita contents and at the same
time handing to her personally the saie! true and attested copy of the same.
R. Thomas Kline, Aheriff, who heing duly $worn according to
law, says that he served the above Complaint in Civil Action Law and Notice,
in the following manner I The Aheriff mail one of the within named defendants,
to wit! The Cooper Comanies Inc., a Delaware Corporation, individually and
as Successor in Interest toNatural Y Aurgical Specialties, Inc. and
Aesthetech a notice of the pendency of the action by certified mail, to
their last known address of John L. McGOldrick, Esquire, McCarter & English,
1000 MUlberry street, Newark, N.J. 07012-4096. This letter was mailed
under the date of .January 28, 1994. Letter was rer:eived by The Cooper
Companies, Inc. on February 02, 1994 with return receipt caI'd signed with
an unreadable signature. Return rer:eipt card is hereto attached.
R. Thomas Kline, Sheriff, who being duly sworn acr:ording to
law, says that he served the above Complaint in Civil Action Law and Notice,
in the following mannen The Sheriff mailed one of the within named
defendants, to witt Bcotfoam Corporation, a notice of the pendency of the
action by certified mail, to their last known address at Carl A. Kenlein,
Esqulre, Brown, Todd & Keyburn, 3~OO CapHal Holding Center, Louisville,
KY 40202-3363. This letter was mailed under the date of January 28, 1994.
Letter was received by Scotfoam Corporat.ion on February 2, 1994 with return
receipt card signed with an unreadable signature. Return receipt card is
hereto attar:hed.
R. Thomas Kline, Sheriff, who being duly sworn according to law,
eaye that he served the above Complaint in Civil Action Law and Notice,
ill the following mannen The Sheriff mailed one of the wHhln named
defendants, to witt Applied Silicone Corporation, a notice of the pendency
of the action, to their last known address at R. Almstair Winn, Esquire,
Req. Agent Applied Ailicnne, 320 West Atanley Ave., Ventura. CA 93001. this
letter was mailer! under the date of .January 28, 1994. Letter was received
by APplied silicone Corporation on 1"ebruBry 02, 1994 with return receipt
card signer! with an unreadable signature. Return receipt card is hereto
llttar:hed.
SherHf's CostSI
I)qllke t .ing
Bervice
flurcha rgll Ma il
eer t if ied
BO
I
Answersl
,
/..~;'
-:. .-',',.,.
~'" .',
'I '.I.'~'"
..- "
,.,
30.00
7.64
10.00
-~ Pd. by Atty.
~ 2-09-94
,"',: ",
" I,~~
......,1'. "
1 Rheriff
" ThomaB Kline,
R. ~ -1;1."'7
BY --Ii..: _
Deputy Sheriff
Sworn and
c...
T h i 8 -L!l:::;._
ibed to Before Me
RubBcr
Day of Il(, "'~
( \ {.', tv! ,it..:.:-~ .
1994, ^. D. p"rii't.ti~notllry ,
"
[.j, I
J;,
d
""I"
\,i'
Ii;
~I
In,
fL
,L'
I
.11,
:U I
, ,
"
,
"
, I'
L
"
"
11,1 I
.
,
J I'
I
'_'I
I','
'JI
i.' I
, i!
, .
"
, "
",1
,I
,;)'11
.
" ,
I
,
I'
"
'"
,
"
I.
IE' ,',
;;1
, I
,
il
il
~,., .. ~ _~,....J,.
',"
...
, I
",
,J! '
"")\>1
.'1', :;'1.
'. ,.."",""
u'f
, .,', !'i.j
I' "\\11
, '.I-;,~
,'.1 .-'td:
l' ~ /
, .'
I '. I I I
'/ I ~ ... II 1'lIm. I .-/11, a,., ttIllIlitolll .".,..., " I .I.Q willi 10.,.... '.'iNI
I. .... 11m. J" in~ 40 · ~. 'oIlQwlng ..l\Ilelll I,., ~", l'
I ~ ""'. yqur nln"..... tit"".. on.hI Fly"...f ...., 'orm.. thl. w. un '"~l ,'., _')'-'I,j
I' ,..""....o.~toy..,.' ~ ' ' ,,,,\ l ,\
: ,-.t.-:.tt ~~ to 'hi 'rQ"~." IN m.Ilp1,cl, Q' on the blck I' .p.a. ,'1 LJ Addl'''''' ,~; '; I
" . _'_R.....RO<lUl.'.~"..lNm"'pI".bolOw......I.,.n_ a [] ....lrtQ.D~.:,',
, ~R"''''"'ClI'IWIH'howtOWhomlN.rttcl'W''d'h''''cJ,",'''If'''tt . - '~;"""',~It'i' I
, 0 I It '
, . rtlcl. dd"..'d IQI ., rt el. Number
The Cooper Companies, Inc. 336 2Q8 '62 '
,John 10. McGoldr ick, Eequire 411, ..vice Typ.
McCarter' English O""gl.,.rtd Olnl~,tlI '" I
1000 Mulberry Bt. 1roor~lItd, 0000 '\
,N."ark, N. J. 07012-4096 [J bp,... +: 0 ~~,:,~~~:r.,.'" ..;
7. 01" e' D.IIV.LY. ' ,"" i
I"fJI. lil ... l-
I, Add"....'. Add""" IOnly " "qulll1till'
.nd 'It I. p.,dl
, ' I
"
DOMI.TIC lilT" "'CIIIIT
,
" '
,r
"
'I
\,
'" ""
"
I,
"U!ll,...,~~
iJ'
. i i' ,;~
. '
:1
~
,.
'11,.
\'.;
\.'
Off.... 1lI,1Ntt
1\1\\1
uQW~. "
",
t
t
,. ,<
I ' '!I
, ~ "..,.. "ITAL IIIIVIOI
,
"
I,"
I ;,.J
, '
I
I
"
"
" ,
1:-1
"
, ,
"
,..
" '
,.,Int you, nlml. Idd,... Ind ZIP Codl her. '
. .
R. Thomas Kline, sheriff.
Cumberland County Courthou..'
One Courthouse Square
Carlisle, PA 17013
II1I lH'IIIIIIIIIIIIlI.III1.11t1l1l11t It.., IIIIlIIIIIIIII,1 ,Ill
" I, 'f.
'I
I
'I
I" '
"
"
."
'I
r.'~.
, .
I ,
!'
,
.
;
.
'"~ --
~, .
",' ..
"
.1J I .4.....",:~f
,
I,ll
"'~
"
I,
I.
;q'I'
, ,
,
, ,
f-
ir;"
..
]1' ; , I~ I::: ~,::'U ~~, .,.11.,..-' ..,.1..., " 1o:1~~~:U r~~.~ 1= '..,:,/!
t, .' frMt '""" "'"" "'" ad.... on IhIt "v"" 0' IN. 'orm to ""1 W' Gin '"," , "'I,' .._~, ':':',/ "j
I ,......""...,.,..yQU, "', '; _.' - 'i-"r';'i)ll
: " ~""h WI """ ,,'110 I,.n, oflh. m.IIOI..., ,r on 'h. ~"k II ..... 1. l.l A""'.....I. ~~'.:l
: '/1:.C~"'IIII~.qu"'""'n1h.m'i1"","'''w'''''n1.''numbo' 2, [J ....t'IO'"~~, ' I
. ,"',. M"'a~w~I'hQwtoWl'lomll'l'lrtjcl,w"","w,.fitlfldl".d.t,, .....1: I I, I
I' - . CO""!i.!!..mtmutll ~ - " I
. '"0'" Add,lll'" to, I, Allloll Numb., ,'J' ',',I',..,
SOQtfoam P 336 ~08 ~63 .
~/trl A. Konlein, ESQu ire 4b, SlIvlol type '
Brown, Todd & Keyburn 0 RIglllllld 0 '""UNcI ,,'
3200 Capilll Holding Canter !lICO/tlf'"d 0 coo 1\
J,Ol,lisv111$, KY 40202-3363 ILl lx.rolIMIII "urn" Ill:,
7, ... or II ..
li
"
':
,
t. SIU""ulI (Add'.....)
8,
,U,I, Ql'Ol ,....". DOMIITIC "nURN RIClI"
:'
~
I,
: ",
,
"
,1
, "
, '
..
"
\. . .-A' _.-i?", ".-,
" ...
, '.., ,
",\
'.
" '
"
.
i
P,Int you, nlml, Iddrlll Ind ZIP Cod. hi"
. ' .
,R. Thomas Kline, Sheriff
Cumberland County Courthou..
One Courthouse SQuare
,Carlisle, PA 17013
I
l
,"
V'i','il
, I,it
'II..
:':,i
, ltHMi
:. ,,'~.\:~
','i)"q
,) . r f
" ~\(
1"-'
Ij ;'"
"i, Ilt'J~'
Ii \,1, ,:1
'; 'I,~ll;
~ Jt.I,~~i\,
;', 'j,~<I.
" ~;
\ I I:~':J
,; II!,}I'"
1':"\1
'''''11
1;,/
"i~1
".111
r' ,
r~".""::I=~ K~ 400 ~I~ ~QY94
: ' 0ffIIlII1u...... ua'lW'Wl$PJ
i(
n
1I,1IIM~~I""I.'iWNA~~AllfIll'"'I'',III,Il'I''''''''' 1\ \ I \ , \ \ '
\11.11I11,1 1111 11~ I I I I
"
, '
I',
)'
" f
,
l-
f
\" >.
',' "
"
-;b.lr'."~
.
1",
,
11,
,.;
i..
I
I
).;'
;
!
. ,'"
r
f It.,..'....Inr."'_lII../YII.., .
I..... a, .Illj 4. . .'
.. .YIMl,"_.... _.. "" ......... 1IIi. "'.. ..,"" w....
/ItIIII'IM.~..,.., ' .
· t\1IttlIIl - ,.". It lilt """ ., .... ........., or .. lilt ""III ......
; ~t lltI.t';;:;""oIlll~_,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,olIpI".IotIoW""JIlI"'~
, v".--....""*W~""'W..W"""''''''.....~W......_....'''''_
ftf.'~ Add'H.'" 10: , ...
R. Almlteir ~inn, ERquire
Req. Agent Applie~' Silicon
320 WERt Btan1ey Ave.
Ventura,. CA 93001
.,
,
..-.--,.. DOMIITlc; R!TURr. Mell" ,
'I
"
,I
I
"
It,!
\,'
'... ..
."..,'\",
..
"
,
1\,,',
'I
I
;~_!" "1,1;';"- -I,!" I ' '
r : .."..... ,..,~ ..Vlll'
II !",', ,,"
I" I
I,'
"
,
111111
uQ~~
/'
,
i'i'
',Int VOUf n.m.. .dd,... .illl Z" Cod. h.,.
, fl. Thoma" Kline, Sheriff .'
Cumberland County Courthou..
O~e C~urthou,e BQuar.
Carlisle, PA 17013
1","'",11I"""11,,1/,,, ", "II, I'" I,,' "" ""1.11I","
I
!
!
{
,
I,
l
I
1.I,f
, /
I
!' ,
I
I'
,
I
(
'"j
I
I,
I
"J"
'( ,
t '
"
0ffIIIII "'......
''''i''i1:~i.
\; ,il';i.'
I'. "j
'l--rt
, ..
"
. :~I"
'III,
~fl
iI.'"
, ,.'~q,
, I,',
;"-1 (If,
1')11._'
/".1',,'
, '
t '!CJj
r!t:o..~
\"1
.
I ,:' I,ft
I,
,
, .
,
,
"
'i
"
I'
I "
"1
r".....
.' J I "j
,.
,
,
\
,
'I
I ,
, I,
1'1
, "
,',
,
j
,. '
"" -
~
~',
,i'
d.
(,
fJ,:,:,
t
~{'l'"
r "
,
,/;:
II;
~',
':L
l'
ri
~\;
~t
,!,
Ii,',
,V'I_
"
[<I
\' ,
1._'
"
"
i~
~( ,
K,
"
C.1'1 A. ltanlal!!L ..qulre '
DOWN TOI)D' qY.UM
~200 C.pltal Holdin9 centel'
Loul.vl11a, MY 40202-3363
Attornef. for Dlfendant, Icotfoa.
R. Al..talr Wlnn, ..qulre
Req. AVent Applied S11100ne
320 we.t .tanley Avenue
Vantura, CA i3001
Attorney. for Dlfendent, APplied .111oone co~q~.tlon
...11' J. .roujl, M.I).
3431 Trlndle aoad
Ca.p Hl11, PA 17011
Defendant
co..etlc 8UI'very Center
3438 Trlndla aoad
Camp Hill, PA 17011
Defendant
"
ONCA, P.c.
l~i ,
, "
...,-,0-,
\I!
215631
17101
'fI'
, ,
,
~--,'
l'i
, '
"
!,
].,1
i',
"
,',
I ,L
, 'I
'I
\t
;
,;'
t,._..
""
~ ....).
~ ';. Ii;
IJ.l .,
~. .,' .1
'"
"I ,. ...
=
-~
= ,,"j.'
"i
.- ',1,".
ill ...
L..o..; ~'; l;,.l
iI
.,
, I
,I
.,
, I
,
,.\
1 !,'
1
"
"
'; 'I
to
. ,
I,
J'I
',.i
,
.1
, I
"
.
1
1
., ,', 1'1,
, ,
.
,
I'
i,
I
'.
"
I'
I'
, I
II
"
.,
D~1- HM8~L aULI.IVAN, IIALI.oN,
CfJlIIUIlR , IHWAD'!'
BYI Cheryl M. Nicolson, Esquire
Attorney I.D. 157422
BYI Peter A. Dunn, Esquire
Attorney 1.0. 108681
216 South Orange street
Hillhuut
Media, Pennsylvania 19063
(216) 666-9600
Attorneye for D.f.ndant,
Applied Silicone CQrporatiOh
CYNTHIA H. MoGEE and KEN HoGEE
e COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CCUHBERLAND COUNTY, PA
I
I
e
INO. 372, 1994
e
I
e
VB.
~HE COOPER COMPANIES
and
APPLIED SILICONE CORPORATION,
et al
BN'l'Ry OF APPIARANCB
TO TIll PROTHONOTARY'S OPPICII
kindly enter our Appearanc. on behalf of
OefendantCe), Applied Silicone corporation, only, in th. above-
oaptioned aatter.
Defendants de..nd a jury trial with twelve (12)
jurore and two (2) alternateB.
, ,
, '
DUNN, HAAsI, SULLIVAN, II,&r.r'()lf,
ClflRNllR . BROAD'!'
ISYI~. )Y(~Il~if~_
P A. 0 , SQUIRI
CH L M. IfICOLSON, ISQUIRI
Attorney for Defendant
Applied Silicone Corporation
JI
"
1"\
." I
,
L'
U
'II
I
.1
,
i
I
'i
I
.
Dun, IlIA", 'ULLXVU, KALLO',
01....1. . laoAD'I'
BY. Cheryl M. Nicollonl Ilquirl
Attorney 1.0. '~7422
BY. Petlr A. Dunn, Ilquire
Attorney 1.0. '08681
216 South orange Street
Hillhurat
Media, Pennlylvania 19063
(2UI) 565-9600
Atltor-neYI for Defendant,
Appli.d Silioone Corporation
-
CYNTHIA H. MaGEE and KEN McGEE
.COURT OF COMMON PLEAS or
ICUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA
.
.
.
. NO. 372, 1994
I
I
I
VI.
THE COOPER COMPANIES
and
. APPLIED SlLICONE CORPORATION,
et al
D.r'HDAXT, a"LIID 'ILICOHI OOaPOIATIOH",
MI'''la TO 'LAIMTlrr.' .IOaT rou CON.LAIMT "ITH
HI" KaTTla MID ,aILINIMAIY OIJICTIOM.
AnlwerinCJ Detendant, Applied silicone corporation, by and
throuCJh i tl oounsel, DUNN, HAASE, SULLIVAN, MAI.LON, CHERNER ,
BROADT, P.c., hereby responds to th.. averments oontained in
Plaintifts' oourt approved Short Form Complaint by way ot the
tollowing.
UDDL DIHIAL
Purluant tQ Case Management Order Number 8, paragraph 4(a),
Answering Defendant denies all taotual allegations contained in
Plaintitts' Complaint.
DlrlHDAHT KlHUraCTU.I.. AND alLATID CON.UII.
pursuant to Case ManaCJement Order NUJllber 8 Paragraph 4 (b) ,
Anlwering Detendant responds a. tollows.
Admitted in partl denied in part" An.werin9 Defendant admit.
that it b a California corporation with it. principal place ot
bu.inee. in California.
An.werinq Defendant .pecifically denial all other all.qation.
.pecifically Itated in Plaintiff.' Short Form Complaint or
otherwile inoorporated therein and further .peoifically denie. that
at any time it d..iqned, manufactured, diltributed, labeled,
te.ted, paokaqed and/or .old breaat implant.. Anawerin9 Defendant
further denie. that any of the other parties to thi. action were
it. partner, agent or servant, or subject to An.wering Defendant'.
control or riqht to control. On the contrary, all other partie.
were entirely independent of Anlwerinq Defendant.
By way of further re.ponae, Applied Silicone Corporation i. in
the buliness of manufacturing and .eUin9 raw material a that may be
uaed in the manufacture of lilicone gel and .Uicone e1a.tomer.
~he.e raw material. are aupplied to purcha..ere in liquid form,
either in glasa or plaetic bottles or in druma and are
remanufaotured and fabrioated by the puroha.er. for their own
applications.
The only dome.tic United state. manufacturers to whom Applied
silicone corporation ha. lold raw materiale for U.e in breaat
implant. are Bioplasty corporation/Bio Manufaoturin9, Mentor
Corporation and Cox Uphoff corporation. supply of .uoh raw
material. to these manufaoturerl did not ocour before September of
1988.
After reasonable inveati9ation, Applied Silioone corporation
i. without suffioient knowledge or information to form a belief as
to whether any of its raw material. were used in the lilioone
brea.t implants allegedly uaed in Plaintiff'. ~.dioal care.
After rea.onable inveotiqation, Applied silioone corporation
i. without .uffioient knowledge or information to form a belief a.
to whether any of it. raw material. were u.ed in the .ilioone
breaat implant. allevedly u.ed in Plaintiff'. medioal oare.
CAI. ...01.10 JMWa.~.'IO.
'",
"
Denied. After rea.onable inve.tiqation, An.werinq Defendant
i. without .uffioient knowledge or information with whioh to form
a beUef a. to the truth of the averment. oontained herein.
Th.refore, aaid averment. are denied, at iaaue and .triot proof of
.a.e i. demand.d at the time of trial.
cau.. o. aCTlolI
Denied. Plaintiffa' averment. oontained herein .tate
oonoluaiona of law to which no reapondve pleading h required
under the Pennaylvania Ru1ea of civil Prooedure.
An.wering Defendant further apeoifically denie. each and every
olaim oontain.d in the cau.e. of action identified herein aa fully
.et forth in Plaintiffa' Fourth Amended Complaint.
CLAIM' aQaIH.T ..LATID ClOMPAMI..
The averment. contained in thi. paragraph of Plaintiff.' Short
Form complaint do not pertain to An.wering Defendant. Therefore,
no re.ponse i. required and .aid averment. are d.emed denied.
....... .....MTY CLAIM'
Denied. Plaintiffs have failed to properly rai.. an exprea.
warranty claim in itl failure to provide along with Plaintiff.'
Short Form complaint the written expre.. warranty relied upon
and/or a desoription of a .peoific oral warranty a. de.oribed by
plaintiff., including the date on which such warranty waD made, the
I,
,
,"
..
, '
"
"
,:
per.on who made the warranty and the expre.. term. of the warranty.
Aooordingly, it i. .peoifioally denied that Plaintiff. have
adequately rai.ed an Gxpre.. warranty olaim .ufficient to meet the
require.ent. of the Court.
aLT...a~IY~ LI"lLl"
Denhd. It b .peoifioally denied that plaintiff. have
properly rai.ed an alternative liability olaim in plaintiff.' Short
Form Complaint. Aooordingly, all avarment. oontained herein are
.peoifioally denied.
wal.lrO.I, Answering Defendant, Applied Silioone corporation,
r..peotfully reque.t. judgment be .ntered in it. favor and aqain.t
Plaintittl.
MI. IlaTTlI
'1. Plaintiff.' Complaint tail. to .tate a olaim or
oau.. of aotion again.t Defendant, Applied silioone corporation,
upon whioh relief oan b. granted.
2. Plaintiff. voluntarily and wlth full knowledge
as.umed any and all ri.kl a..ooiated with the implantation of the
subjeot breast implant..
3. All risks assooiated with the implantation of the
subjeot breast implant. would have and .hould have been explained
to plaintiffs before the surgical procedure. de.oribed in
Plaintiff.' complaint.
4. Plaintifta consented to the implantation of the
.ubjeot brea.t implantl with full knowledge of any and all risk.
assooiated therewith.
, . ~ I
!l.
The cau.e. of action alle..".d in PliintUf.'
Complaint are barred by the applicable rule., law. and regulation.
related th.reto.
6.
Th. cau... of action alleg.d in Plaintiff.'
:Complaint are barred under the Dcctrine of Federal Pr.emption.
7.
~he damag.. or inj uri.., if any, .u.tain.d by
Plaintiff., w.re not cau..d by the conduct of An.werin9 Def.ndant.
8.
Allor part of the injuri.., dama..".. and/or 10....
"I
(if any) .u.tained by Plaintiff wa. a direct, proximate and .ole
result of .uch Plaintiff'. phy.ical and bodily condition on, prior
to, and aub.equent to eventa alleged in tha complaint, and .uch
Plaintiff is thus barred from any recovery in this action under the
doctrin. of no liability for an idio.ynaratic reaction.
9.
Th. acta and/or omis.ions of other individual. or
entities over whom Answering Defendant had no control, con.tituted
an intervening and superseding cause of the damagee alleged to have
been au.tained by the Plaintiff..
10. Any acta and/or omiaaion. on the part of An.w.ring
Defendant alleged to conatitute negligence were not .ub.tantial
cauaes or factors connected to or relating in any way to
Plaintiffa' alleged damages.
11. Answering Defendal,t denies that it wa. negligent in
any manner what.oever. ShOUld it be determined to the contrary,
then the negligence of Plaintiffs or othere was comparatively
greater than that of Answering Defendant caueing Plaintiffs' claims
to be barred and/or reduced pursuant to the penn.ylvania
comparative Negligenoe Act.
,
1"
,G
12. The injuriea to plaintitt, it any, wer. proxi.ately
aauaed by the miaua., abua., alteration and/or tailure to properly
maintain or care tor the aubject product by p.raona other than the
Anawerinq Detendant.
13. All raw materia!. manutactured by Anawerin9
Detendant alleqed to be at taaue herein were manufaotured in
oontorm'ity with the "atate ot the art" exhtin9 at the tilDe ot
manutacture ot auch raw materiala.
14. Anawerin9 Defendant aven that any prodUct or
material manutactured, sold and/or otherwiae diatributed by it waa
not manutaotured, sold or otherwiae dittributad in a defective
condition.
1~. Applied silioone Corporation made no warrantie. ot
any kind, expr.ss or implied, or any repreaentation. ot any nature
whataoever to Plaintitts herein. It any suoh warranties were made,
,
whether express or implillld, whioh Applied silioone specifically
denies, then Plaintiffs tailed to qive timely notice ot any breach
thereof.
16. It it it eatabliahed at the trial of thit matter
that any produot manufaotured, aold or otherwiae dhtributed by
Anawerin9 Defendant was implanted in Plaintitt in a deteotive
condition, whioh ia specifioally d.nied, Anawerinq Defendant avera
that auch product had undergone aub.tantial change in condition
after leaving the handa ot Anewering Defendant.
17. It Plaintift wae the recipient ot any product
manutactured, sold and/or otherwiae diatributed by Anawerin9
'I
I
I
I
I
Ii
,I
,)
Detendant, .uch prcduct wa. not the proximate cau.I ot any damage.
or injurie. alll91d by Plaintitt..
I 18 Plaintift.' claim. an barred by the applicable
statuti ot Limitation..
19. It An.wering Defendant provided raw material. to a
manutacturer ot implant., then An.wering Detendant cannot be held
liable to the Plaintift. pur.uant to .trict liability concept. .et
torth in the Re.tatement (Second) of Tort. 1402A, becau.e tho.e
.ilicone material. were chanqed or moditi.d by others betore they
were u.ed in the Plaintiff's medical oare.
20. If An.werinq Defendant provided raw material. to .
manufacturer of implants, thsn An.werinq Defendant wa. not in
privity with the Plaintitfe and extended no warrantie., either
expre.. or implied, to her reqardinq it. .ilioone material..
21. If Answering Defendant supplied raw materiall which
have alleqedly oaused injury to the Plaintiff (whiCh caaual
oonnection An.werinq Defendant .pecifioally denie.), that .ilicone
waG .upplied, if at all, to a sophistioat.d user and, therefore,
An.werinq Defendant oannot be held leqally re.pon.ible for any lack
of information or misinformation provided to plaintiffs by other..
22. Plaintiff. are precluded from reoovery on the cause.
of action. alleqed based upon the dootrine .et forth in Comment "K"
ot the Reatatement (Second) of Tort., 1402A.
23. Plaintiff.' Complaint fail. to .tate faot.
.uffioient to oonetitute a oau.e of action aqain.t Defendant whioh
would ju.tify the imposition ot punitive or exemplary damaqe. undar
any applicable law.
,i
I
a4. The ri.k. and complication. attendant to the uee ot
the eubject breaet implante, if any, were well known by the medical
cODlll\unity, and Anewerinw Defendant, Applied 8Uicone, wa. not
required to provide warninwe or inetructione with regard to thoee
deke and complicatione. Further, any cau.e of action ba.ed on any
alleged failure of Defendant, Applied Silicone, to provide
aufficient warning. to Plaintiff. i. barred by the Learned
Intermediary Doctrine.
ae. ~o the ext.nt that Plaintiff'e brea.t implant. may
be eubject to governmental regulation, they are so regulated by
federal law. and .tatutes and the regulations of federal agenciee.
a6. Plaintiffs' claims are preempted by the federal
governmental statutes, standards and regulation. applicable to
medical device manUfacturers and applicable to the de.i9n, te.ting,
manufacturer, a..emb1y and Bale of medical device. and
particularly, to eilicone gel breast implants.
27. To the extent that punitive or exemplary damage. are
sought by Plaintiff., such claim for damage. ie barred by the
Conetitution of the Commonwealth of Penn.ylvania and the
con.titution of the Qnited state..
as. Plaintiff. have failed to give Answering Defendant,
Applied Silicone corporation, timely notice of any claimed breache.
of warranty or other alleged defeot..
29. ~o the extent that Plaintiff'. expen.ee have been
paid by collateral lource., Defendant, Applied sUicone
corporation, may be entitled to a eet-off of any damage. under
applicable laws.
I'
~I
I
JO. AII.werinq D.tendant, Appli.d siUoone Corporation,
r~.erve' it. riqht to objeot to the venue ot thi. aotion.
J1. The Complaint tail. to .tate with .utfioient
partioularity the oircum.tanc.. aUeCJedly con.titutinlJ fraud by
Anawnin9 Defelldant, Appli.d Silioon.' corporation.
:)3. Any injur1ea alleqed by Plaintiff were not oau..d by
breaat implanta.
J3. ~he Court in which Plaintiff. have brouqht thi.
aotion lack. perlonal jurildiotion over an.werin9 Defendant.
34. In the event the Plaintiffs reque.t delay damaqe.
purauant to penn.ylvania RUle of Civil Procedure 238, an.wering
DefendAnt hereby challenq81 the applicability and conatitutional1ty
of aaid Rule and places it at iaaue.
.....ro.., anawaring Defendant, APplied Silicone Corporation,
demand. jUdCJment be entered in its favor and aCJainllt Plaintif" and
all oth.r parties, togeth.r with co.ts, interest, counael feea and
any other award this Court deem. just and proper.
.a.LIIIIMAay OIlJIICTIOIII .Ql
AM....IIIG D.r.MD..,. A.fLI.D .ILICOII. CO.POlATIO.
l. '.ILIHIIIl.Y OIlJ.CTIOII 0' l"LIID IILICOIII
COatolATIOII fUlIUAMT TO fA. a.C.f. 101ICa'Cl) roa
LAC. or ....O.AL JU.I.DICTIOM
35. Applied Silioone Corporation ia a Corporation orqanized
and exilting under the lawa of the state of california with it.
principal place of business located at 320 West stanley Avenue
Ventura, California, 93001. IaI Verifioation of R. Al..tair Winn
attached hereto as Exhibit "A".
36. Applied Silicone corporation doe. not currently have
and never ha. had a place ot bu.ine.. or re9i.tered ottice in the
Commonwealth ot penn.ylvania. ~
37. Applied Silicone corporation ha. never conducted
buaine.. within the Commonwealth ot Penn.ylvania. ~
38. Ba.ed upon the tora9oin9, this Court lack. per.onal
juri.diotion over Applied Silicone corporation. ~
......0.1, Applied Silicone Corporation re.peottully
requeete that thb Honorable Court diemia. Applied silioone
Corporation tor laok ot p.reonal juriediotion.
DUn, IIAA'I, 'ULLIVur, MALLO.,
ORlaNl. . .aolDT
(l ZJ
OHI.Y~ . MIOOL.O ,
Attorn y tor Applied
1. D. 157422
216 S. orange st.
Media, PA 19063
IYI
Corp.
I,
, 'I'
111\
" I
VBRIPICM'.lOJl
CIIIRYL M. NICOLSON, ISQUIRB states that he/she is attorney for
Applied Silicone corporation in the above named action, that he/she
takes this Verification on the Defendant's behalf, that he/she i.
acquainted wi th the facts set forth in the foregoing pleading, that
the same are true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge,
information and belief, and that this statement is made subject to
the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904 relatinq to unsworn
falsification to authorities.
DUNN, IIAALlB, SULLIVAN, IIALLOM,
CHIlUfBR , BROAM'
Dated I
-$t~/,,/
{ f .
BYI
CBRTI'ICATIO~ 0' BBRVICI
I hereby certify that I have served a copy of this paper upon
all parties or their counsel bYI
x
regular mail
certified mail
other
i.
l'
DUNN, lIAASl, SULLIVAN, MALLON,
CHIRNBR , B~
~qj~ !tit/A/.
CH . tCOLSON
Att ey for Applied Silicone
Corporation
1.0. 157422
216 S. orange st.
Media, PA 19063
BYI
i
j"
Dated I
j DA .
It ~...
~ "If'.'
I ._.1"
- /'1":0,,,,
:R .1 ~It. l. I
h. \:l()'.,
<'J '" ?: ~)':, ,
,.,
, j"\
r'- , "
I.jl., "
, .,J..
"" " "
....~ .. ,
;'1 I,:.
, ,
"
, ,
I', I
~
otl~~ ~
~t!P
J.~~~;
g X
~
,
"
'.
CERTIFICA~E OF SERVICE
I, Joseph P. H.fer, of the l.w tirm of ~homo., ~hom.s . H.ter,
do h.r.by certify th.t on this d~y I s.rv.d a true and correct copy
ot the for.qoinq '1AIC!.1 ,oa IBTay 0' APPlAaAHCI on the followinq
by depositinq . true and corr.ct copy in the United Stat.s M.il, at
H.rrisburq, Pennsylvania, .ddr....d .s tollowsl
John L. McGoldrick, Esquire
MCCAaTla I IHGLI.H
Four Gat.way c.nter
100 Mulberry Street
P.O. Box 662
N.wark, NJ 07101-0652
National Counsel tor
'l'he Cooper companies, Inc.
Carl A. Hen1ein, Esquir.
laoWH, TODD , HIVIUaH
1600 citizens Plaza
Louisville, KY 40~02
National Counsel tor
Saottoam Corporation
\1
"
R. Almstair Winn, Esquire
Reg. Agent Applied silicone
320 West Stanley Avenue
Ventura, CA 93001
National Counsel tor
Applied silioone Corporation
Jam.s R. Ronoa, Esquire
.CKKIDT . aOHCA, ..C.
209 State street
Harrisburq, PA 17101
Plaintitts' Counsel
THOMA', THOMAI . KA'la
DATil APR 0 (\ 1994
BYI
Jos
30
P. . B 999
Ha is urg, PA 17108-0999
(717) 237-7613
Attorneys tor Detendant,
Bamir J. Srouji, M.D.
I ,
"-'l"
(1'1
"
11;1
.1
, ,
"
"
'r-.-:'
.,
,.J
.-'"
"::JI::.=:.:.r.;,'t:' .- ---';l',:-.l:;:;'::'~;..-.=:r.;:'~~- -:;:::===:
__ ---......r=:;;:L:.--::--~..:;=
~
i~!d
~ J~ ! I
. ~ ~ i
~ I ·
._,~._..- .~,---
--'
...-.......-.. -.---
=
=
-....
------
_R'.'."____"
---~-
, .
.,
, .
.
.
.
\
CYNTHIA H. MCGEE .nd KEN MCGEE,
PI.lntlff.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v,
CIVIL ACTION. LAW
THE COOPER COMPANIES, INC., . D.I.war.
Corporation, Indlvldu.IIV .nd .. .ucc...or In
Intar..t to N.tura' Y Surgle.1 Sp.el.ltI... Inc.
.nd A..th.teeh/ SCOTFOAM CORPORATION;
AItPLIED SILICONE CORP,; .nd SAMIR J,
'ROUJI, M.D.; .nd COSMETIC SURGERY
CENTER,
D,'.nd.nll
NO, 372 CIVIL 1994
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
PRAI!CIItI fOR WITHDRAWAL Of APPI!ARANCI!
TO THE PROTHONOTARY:
PI.... withdraw the .pp..r.nc. of th. und.ralgn.d .. .1l0rn.YI for S.mlr J, Sroull, M,D. In
th. .bov. m.ttar.
"
DATE: ~/1'i"/
.Y.
.,., Iqulre
th Front Stre.t
urg. PA 17108.0999
(7 266.7613
'If'orn.YI lor Delendent,
Slmlr J, Sroujl. M,D,
PRAECIPI! fOR ENTRY OF APPEARANCE
I,
TO THE PROTHONOTARY;
PI.... .nter the .pp..r.nc. of the und.,llgned .. .1I0rn.VI lor S.mlr J, Sroujl. M.D. .nd
COlmttle Surg.ry C.nter In th. .bov. m.ller.
I
I
GERMAN. GALLAGHER & MURTAGH
, "1
:,1",., II
\11,
""'1
i' ,
\11;11
I'
'j
li""1
1101
Ind porr.Sw..n.V. Elqul
40 Ealt aranl Slr..t
L.ncaltar. PA 17602
17171 293-8070
Allorn.VI lor Del.ndant.
Samlr J, Sroull. M,D, .nd
COlmttlc Surgarv Center
DATEI 01. rr 9'1
.
.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, JOI,ph P. Hlf.r, of th.lllw firm of Thomll, Thom.. . Hlfer, do h,,.by certify thlt on thll
dlY I..rv,d I tru, Ind correct copy of the foregoing PRAECIPE FO" WITHORAWAL OF APPEARANCE
en" PRAlelPl '0" INTRY 0' APPEARANCE on the following by d.po,ltlng . true Ind correct copy
In the Unlt.d Stlt.. M.II, II Herrl'burg, Penn.ylv,nl., .ddre...d II follow.:
John L. McGoldrlck, E.qulr.
MCCARTER' INOLlSH
Four G.t.w.y C.nt.r
100 Mulbarry Strllt
P,O. Sox 6152
N.w.rk, NJ 07101.06&2
N'tlon,1 Counlll fO'
T", Coop" Comp,ni", Inc.
Carl A. H.nl.ln, Elqulr.
B"OWN. TODD' HEYBURN
1600 Cltlz.n. Plaza
Loul.vlll., KY 40202
Nltlon,1 Counlll fo,
Seotlo,m Co,po"tlon
R. Alm.l.lr Wlnn, E.qulr.
R.g. Ag.nt Appll.d Bill con.
320 Wilt Bt.nl.y Av.nu.
V.ntura, CA 93001
N'tlon,' Counlll fo,
Appll,d Silicon' Co,po"tlon
"
J.m.. R, Ronc., E.qulr.
SCHMIDT l RONCA, P.C.
209 Bt.t. BWllt
Harrl.burg, PA 17101
PI,lntiff, / Coun,,1
DATIl U7,o1.?,/,
DU~/_ HAASI, SULLIVAJI, MALu)N,
CHMlfIll . BROAD'l'
BY' Cheryl M. Nioolson, Esquire
Attorney 1.0. 157422
BYI Peter A. Dunn, Esquire
Attorney I.D. 108681
216 South oranqe street
Hi llhurst
Media, Pennsylvania 19063
(216) 566-9600
\ Attorney. for Oefen~ant,
Applied Silicone Corporation
CYN~HIA H. MoGEE and KEN McGEE
'COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
:CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA
c
,
I
cNO. 372, 1994
e
e
,
VB.
THE COOPER COMPANIES
and
APPLIED SILICONE CORPORATION,
et 51
PRABCIPB TO WITHDRAW PR~LIIIINARY O~IICTIONS
TO THE PROTHONOTARY:
Kindly withdraw the Preliminary Objections of Defendant,
Applied Silicone Corporation, filed in the above-captioned matter.
DIJJtN, HAASB, SULLIVAJI, MALLON,
CHIlRNI!R . BROADT
BY'
'J 'I I
DUNM, IIMaIl, SUld,IVAN, HAl,loON,
CHIlUIIUl . DROAD'l'
BYI Cheryl M. Nicolson, Esq\lire
Attorney I.D. 157422
BYl Peter A. Dunn, Esquire
Attorney 1.0. 108681
216 South Orange street
Hillhurst
Media, Pennsylvania 19063
( 215) 565-9600
Attorney. for Dehndant,
Applied silioone corporation
CYNTHIA H. McGEE and KEN McGEE
,COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
'CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA
I
I
I
lNO. 372, 1994
I
I
I
vs.
THE COOPER COMPANIES
and
APPLIED SILICONE CORPORATION,
et al
WITHDRAWAL 01' APPlIWlANgs
~O THE PROTHONOTARVl
Kindly withdraw my appearance on behalf of Defendant, Applied
Silicone corporation, in the above captioned matter.
DUMN, HAASB, SULLIVAII,
CHBRNBR . BROADT
'--I
0, 11
MALLON,
BYI
I
I
,I
I
I
'\
lUITRY 01' APPIlARANCB
r
I!'
\
i
,
~o ~HE PROTHON~ARVI
1'1'
Kindly entel' my appearance on behalf of Defendant,
Silicone corporation, in the above captioned matter.
~-~~
GILDA KRAMBR, ISQUIRIl
Applied
;'1'1
II ,\""
"
'I
'1
~ ~,.. '\\'
~,.
.,
IF., ., II. ~,_,
'.1 , .,
:~ ., '.
'.. .. 1 "
'10,
!::::!
l:n .. ., I I
,..., ,
.Ji '., ~.'
,
"
"
I'
, '
, ,
'I
,I!
',.
"
.1
I'
I
, ,
"
I,
i
II
"
,
,'I
Ii
ql,
"
; ~ Ii
,
I,
I
,I
il
"
I'
I.
I I,
'I
I,
I
II
'I
I
'I
, ,
,
q
1,)
, I
I'
" ',. l_"! ,.
, 1< "
il I ~~-,
, i'
P)',' , I
I')'
I ' ,
1'- , ol. "
,I,. ,
';-1 I,)li .
L i~ 'J
':!i
r -I I'.' i ,I
L t.: II
.1 "!I,.l.. "
I, c;. "
ll,. r:~ ,':'J
u '" I.)
,
I
I ii,
'I
,
,
I'.I!
"
-~t)1
II'"
':'j,
'_III:,
~ di'l
'I,
I,
I
I,..,
I ij',
,
,
II
,
I,
'"
,
I'
"
,
,
I,'
"
l!
I
~! :)
Ii'
"
1\
II"
i1i;
1.,1
,
'I
I"
'~,
'_ii' _'~
~,\t,~;,
q
I
,I
i
~!"'""~_."'.
/If.' .
"lI..,IIHII
,'",,\
11.1
1/:
I,
'"'c: J., f> I'tb
,
.~
,-..,
t/u.. 1,.",,/(<. ,I, G, '11,~~.,J. Cu..J 1'11'1
'rERI'1ED REMAND
U.S. Diatrict Court
US DC for the Northern District of Alabama (Smlthernl
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE ~: 96-CV-~0644
Mc~ee v. Dow Corning
Assigned tOI Chief Judge Sam C Pointer, Jr
Demand: $0,000
Lead Docket I None
Dkt II in PAM : is 1:95--'01279
Dkt II in MOL I is 926
Cause: 2811332 Diversity-Prqduct Iliability
Filed: 02/09/96
Nature of Suit: 365
Jurisdiction: Diversity
CYN'fHIA H MCGEE
plaint if f
P1a's Liaison counsl
(205) 252-0423 fax
[CORl
HARE WYNN NEWELL & NEWTON
Ma~sey Building, Suite 800
290 21st Street, North
Birmingham, AL 35203
(205) 328-!j330
MENTOR CORPORATION
defendant
Dft's Liaison counsl
(513) 977-8141 fax
[COR]
DINSMORE & SHOHL
Chemed Center, Suite 1900
255 East 5th Street
Cincinnati, OH 45202
(513) 977-8200
( ., '1"1 (,',)
hi .,
,,) "
\ II
t, , ,
, , I
" ,
t i\
" ,
,
., I
, , "
, ,.
I
KEN MCGEE
plaintiff
v.
DOW CORNING CORPORATION
defendant
HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL
defendant
A 'l'Hl'j;", ('r,ny
ljJ'lRR~ \""')'.11!
tnltTP.11 .". ",. "(\~
MoRTHEllN 3Y)'} \I 1\'\ IW A~B!t J.. .
BYl ..r"}JI/YKJ)f.~y,-_.fUUC-I
XlI CLn~
I
'I
MEDICAL ENGINEERING
CORPORATION
defendant
Docket as of October 16, 1997 4133 pm.
Page 1
,
.~
,-.,
, PrClce,dings
:aJ1l6cv~Q644
include
Mcgeft
all events.
v. Dow Corning
'l'iRMilO
RElMANO
'"
COW CORNING WRIGHT CORPORATION
defendant
!i
, , , "
,
,',
.
II
, 'I
. ,
Ii'
.
. ,
;11
"
',I
1,.1
"
, I
,
,
"
'I
,
Docket 8S of October 16,
1997 4lj3 pm
page 2
",I
..
''"''\
!""
Pr,>oeedingll inolude all eventll.
3,96qvl0644 Mcgee v. Dow corning
,CYNTHIA H MCGEE, KEN MCGEE
plaint i ff
~iRMiD
RiMAND
v.
MJNTOR CORPORATION, DOW CORNING CORPORATION, HO~Y SPIRI~
'HOSPITAL, MEDICAL ENOINEERING CORPORATION, DOW CORNING
WRIGHT CORPORATION
defendant
"
"
, ,
,
I,
, "
'I .\
"II
I,
'I,
,
,
" '
/,
I ,
'"
1'1
"'I I
'I . I
,I
,\
"
,
,
I'
"
"
i L,
l ;,
I I '<1
"
,
, '
Docket as of October 16, 1997 4133 pm
Pllge 3
.
.""',
f"""-,
Prooeedings include all avants.
3196GV101;44 Mcgee v. Dow cornln')
n:RMED
3/21;/96 2
REMAND
ORDER ('I'RANSF'U;R) dau)d 2/6/'16 t.ransferring 128 additional
actions to this court for lncluaion in MOL 926 [96-10546
thru 96-106'13] filedl cer.tJ.fied copy of order w/t.ransmlttal
letter request.ing certified copy of docket entries mailed
to transferror clerke (oh)
Original court fil~ and/or certified copy of docket entries
from clerk of tranferror court received and filed (sj)
[Entry data 02/27/96J
:il/9/96 1
10/14/97
NO'l'ICF: of motion for aeveranc(! and to remand motion filed
in maeter case doc. >>1454 filed by plaintifE cynthia H
McGee, plaintiff Ken McGee cs (sf)
RESPONSE of Minnesota Mining Co in opposition to pltfa'
motion for sever and remand [0 -1 ] filed ca (af)
RESPONSE of dft Samir J. srouji, M.D. to pltf motion for
severance and remand [0,1] filed ca (af)
RESPONSE by de f endant Healthcat'e Providers to pltf' s motion
to remand and S€1Verance lO-lJ filed cxs (af)
ORDER >>39At'etn<lnding (;aeB t.o st.ate courtCumberland Co. PA,
filed ( by chief Judge Sam C, Pointer Jr ), cert cy of
docket aheet, order & orig record mailed to state ctl cm
(kc) [Entry date 10/16/97J
l/18/96
3/29/96 3
4/4/96 4
4/29/96 5
., .
, I
'"
"
, '
,,'
Docket as of october 16, 1997 4133 pm
Page 4
-"
."......
. \
lJl~ITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALI~~AMA
Southern Division
~" ....~
, , . !
In rc: SILICONE GEL DlmAST
IMPLANT PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION (MDL-926)
~7 o:r"l :.:; Sl02
MaSler File CV 92-P-100<Jli:.;$, I,..', ;..' \';'~RT )
1..0. u,' " -..J/,11~~
(Applies to cms IiSle~~,alJi~. p~'
CI1 i teR~"~_j
ORDER No, .19A', Co .::iJ.. ~ 'f~ ...)"
(Renul/ullnll !.lIIled Cum II) Slule Court) ,..j) - ,t,OW.1 4 f99Y> cf
)
)
)
Pursuanlto Order No, 39. and afler considering the responses of Ihe parties (as discussed In Opinion
No. 39A filed concurrenlly herewith), h Is ORDERED as follows:
1. The cases IIs1ed In Ihe appendix to this order will be remanded (() Ihe Indicated stace CI)Urtl upon
docketing and entry of orders previously signed In such casus and subject to Ihe terms and condlllolll of
Ihls order,
2. Tht cerms and conditions under wlllch such relllands arc effected ure as folhlWS:
(4) All claims agalnsc Dow C'lrnlnll Corp, and Dow Corning Wrighc (including any crossclalma
or 1IIlrd.pany claims by defendanlB againsl Dow Corning Corp, or Dow Corning Wrlghl) are, to tbc
eXlenl nOI previously dismissed, severed and nOl remanded. Such claims are. however.
admlnlslralively closed ill this courl and dismissed wlchouc prejudice to the InscllUllon and pursuil of
such claims In the Unhed Slales Distrlcc and Bankruplcy Courts for lhe E~slern Dlslrlcl of Mlchlll&n
In accordance willi procedures eSlablished In chose couns, This coun relalns jurlsdlcllon 10 vacare
such dismissals and reopen such claims agalnsc Dow Corning on wrllten mOllon If med wllllin 30 days
after reorllanlzaclon proceedings of Dow Corning are dismissed or wllhln 30 dllYs afeer lhe Eaalem
Dlslrlcl of Mlchlllan determines lhat reopening of such cases agalnsl Dow Coming Is the procedure
10 be followed In Iiquldallng such claims.
(b) All claims by ~ny pany against The Dow Chemical Company, Inc, and Dow Holdings Inc.
are, to lhe eXlelll nlll previously dismissed or Iransferred, severed and transferred to the Unhed SllI1ea
Dlscrlcl Coun for the Eastern Dlslrlct of Michigan, which will delermine whelher any of such clalma
should be remanded (or allowed 10 proceed ill scale courl as II consequence of federal coun
abSlellllon) ,
(c) As explained In Order No. 30 and Order No, 30G, 011 claims againsl the following
companies have beell dismissed wllh prejudice: Dioplasty. Inc,; Blo-Manufaclurlng, lnc,; Cabol
Medical Corporation; Corning, Inc,: Foamex Producls, lnc,; General Felllnduslrles, IIlC,; Knoll
Inlernallonal Holdings, lnc,; Recllcel Foam Corporation; Scocfoam CorporBlion; SClm Paper
Company; Surghek. Inc,; '21' Illlemallonal Holdings, Inc; '21' Foam Company, Inc,; and Uroplaaly.
Inc.
(II) AllY cl~ims Ilgalnst MenlOr Corporation: Menlor I'olymer Technologies, lnc,; Menlor 0&0.
Inc.; Menlor U/S. Inc,; Mentor Urology, Inc,; Menlor Illlernatlonal. Inc.; and Teknar Corp, relallng
10 breasl hllpllllllS Implallled hefore June 1. 1993, are dismissed with prejudice.
~/I-.J-
''''I ~.
(~) All clalml al>",nlt ()~n~ral E1eclrlc Company hav~ heen ullmllled Wllh prejuditf punlll/ll
II) Order Nu, 3M, The plalllllffs In the IISl~d "'/lIanded cases have, by nO! respol1lllng co Ihe thow
cawe dlrqcllons comalned In Order No, 3'1, disavowed any participation In any appeal whh mptcl
10 Ordor No, 3M,
(I) Any claims allalnsl Union Carbld~ Corporation haled un lis 1990.1992 ownership of
McOhan NuSII C(lrporatlon remanded 10 Ihe huJlcated Slale cuuns, bUl may be pursued In Sl8le coun
only upon demollSlfallun that lhe plalmlffs, If ellllible, Ilmely opled out of lhe original Global
Seulemene or Ihe Revised S\mlemem Program provided by Ihoc defendam. All olher claims agalnsl
Union Carbide Corporaljoll, al well as all claims ogalllsc Union Carbide Chemicals and PIIIIICl
Company, Inc., have heen dismissed with prejudice pursuam to Order No, 37, al1ll tho plaintlffllD
lhe listed remanded cases have, hy nO! responding 10 the show cause directions concalMd In Order
No. 39. disavowed any participation In any appeal with respeellO Order No. 37,
(g) All claims allall1ll1 Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.. Medical Enlllneerlng Corp.. Baxler Hcalthe.,.
Corp.. Baxcer lneernallonallnc" and Mlnnesoca Mining and Manufaclurlng CO. ("3M"), al1lllholr
subsidiaries ore remanded 10 the Indica led stato courts. but may be pursued In Slale court only upon
demol1lllrallon Ihallhe plaintiffs. If elllllble, timely opced out of the original Global Seulemenl or the
Revised Seulemene Program ("RSP") provided by chose defendants. This courl expects plaintiffs to
file In slale cOUrt, afler remand. voluntary dismissals of claims againsl seullng defendants chat sr.
precluded by the RSP and will relain Jurisdiction 10 enforce by Injunctive decree, If necmary.
rescrlctlons agalnsl pursuit of such claims,
NOTE: THOSE CASES MARKED WITH AN ASTERISK (0) MERIT SPECIAL AITENTlON
AS TO DEMONSTRATION OF OPTOUT. A SEARCH BY DEFENDANTS INDICATES
THAT ONE OR MORE OF THE IMPLANT.PLAINTIFPS IN THESE CASES MAY NOT
HAVE OPTED OUT,
(h) All claims agalnsllnamed Corp., al1ll McOhan Medical Corp. are remal1lled 10 the 111lllcIllId
state coures. bUl may be pursued in stale COUrl only If those defendants defaulcln payment of chelr
obllgallons under lhe Revised Seulemenc Pros ram or upon demonslralion thattha plaintiffs. If eligible,
timely opled OUl of lhe original Global Seulemenc or the Revised Seulemenc Program provided by
Ihose del'endancs,
(I) All claims against olher defendants not described In paragraphs l(a) through l(h) above Ire
remanded 10 lhe Indicaled Slale COUrlS.
(j) Further proceedings In slate couns will be governed, In general and 10 Ihe excenc applicable.
by che orders previously entered In MOL 926 and Mascer File No. CV 92-P-IOOOO.S,
(I) To the extent noc inconsislelll whh Male law, the provisions of Order No. 30. Order
No. 30F. and Order No, 30G will apply 10 such furcher proceedings. exceplchol parallraph 8 of
thaI Order No, 30 and Order No, 13. imposing an assessmenc on recoveries for "common beneftt"
services and expenses, will nOl apply 10 recoveries by plalnciffs who exercised lhelr Inlllal right
to Opl OUl of Ihe 1./lIdse,Y class and whose slale-courl case was removed to federal coun solely
under the "relaled 10 hankruplcy" Jurisdiction.
(2) The deposition leslimony of the members of the Nallonal Science Panel. appolnled
under Orders No 31 and 3!D. will. when caken, be admissible und usable In che Slale COUrlSlO
lhe same eXlenc us If tnken hefore remund of the cnse 10 the Slace coure.
2
I
. eV9$.19414 PAl 2,95'06533 92.292 COMM.PL.CT, PHILAolLPHIA co. 'A IIDIIAG
CV9$'19416 PAl 2,95-06535 92-053/ COMM.PL,CT. PHIL.ADiLPHIA r.<l. '" HMINN
CV90'I9417" PAl 2,95-06536 9H591 COMM.PL.CI, PHILADHPHIA co, PA OIlOUIA
CI/95.19m PAl 2'95-06537 92,0717 COMM.PL.CI. PHILAOILPHIA co. PA CAMPIILL PLAIN
CI/95' I 9420 PAl 2 '95'06540 92'314. COMM.PL ,CT, PHILAOILPHIA r.o. ._PA KI rCHIN
CW6'12292 PAl 2,9$'04820 92-1614 COMM.PL ,CI. "HILAOHPHIA co. PA AOIIINI
C'I96.12m PAl 2'95'0482' 92-3919 COMM,PL.CT. PHILADILPHIA co. PA WILLAID
eWI'1l294 PAl 2,95'04879 93.U71 COMM.PL ,CT, PHILAOiLPHIA co. PA IIIMllCN
CWI'12477 PAl 21"'06217 93.0181 COMM.PL ,CI. PHILAOHPHIA r.o. PA 0101010
CW7.I0026 PAl 2,95'06121 94,0663 COMM.PL ,CI. PHILADILPHIA co. PA DONINY
CI/95.19327" PAl 2,9"05076 94-3219 C_.PL,CI. PHILADILPHI$ co. PA CUIMANO.IROILO
CI/95.11056 PAN ,,95,01136 95,3089 COMM.PL ,CI, CUNIULAND co, PA IILLAVIA
C"".1J600 PAN 1,95'01277 170.CV.1994 COMM.PL ,CI. CUNIULAND CO. PA IIINIU
el/95.1I601 PAIl ,,95,0'278 95-1428 C_.PL,CI. CUNIULAND co. PA iAAIIU
C"" .11602 PAIl ,,95,0'280 94-3383 C_.PL,CI, r.UNIULAND CO. PA MOICN
el/95'1360J PAN 1,95'01211 94.6564 COMN'pL.CI. CUNIULAND co. PA PIMII
el/95'1I60,. PAIl ',",01285 9401016 COMN.PL.CI. CUMIULAND CO. PA lIHHUMAN
C'I96.I0644. PAIl ,,95'01279 3017'CIYIL.1992 C_.PL.CT. CUIlIIILAND CD. PA MCDII
C'I96.1064'. PAN ,,95,01212 37.,.,994 COMM,PL .CT. CUMIULAND CO. PA 11111
C'I96.ID646. PAN ,,95'01283 4106.1993 COMM.PL ,CI. CUNIULAND co. PA 1I0Hl
eV95.IJ610. PAIl ,,95,01297 1846'1' 1995 COMN'pL.CI. DAUPHIN CD. ~A POWIII
cl/95.!!m PAIl ,,95'01303 10'8-1-1992 COMM,PL.CI. OAUPHIN co. PA 1110111
C'I96.10647 PAIl 1195.012&6 2112'1992 COMM,PL ,CT., DAUPHIN cu. PA CHU"
C'I96' I 0648 PAIl '195.01217 1191. I 994 COMM.PL.CI. DAUPHIN CO. PA OIMAllA'ITALIY
C'I96.10649 PAIl ,,95'01290 1211' 1993 COIlM.PL.CI. DAUpHIN CO. PA OINlU
e'l96.10650 PAIl ,,95'01291 705-1994 COMN.PL.CT. DAUPHIN co, PA HAINLUOAO
e'l96'10651 PAIl 1195'01292 3996'1992 COMM,PL.CT. DAUPHIN co. PA HD"NAN
C'I96.10652 PAIl ,,95,01293 68,.,992 COIlM.PL.CI. DAUPHIN CO. PA IIINIUO
C'I96.1065J PAIl ,,95,01294 215.1994 COIlM.PL.CI. DAUPHIN co. PA NAYlOI
e'l96.10654 PAN ,,95,01291 1190.1994 COMM,PL.CI. DAUPHIN co. PA PAINGLI
C'I96.10655 PAIl ,,95,01300 1499.1992 COIlM.PL.CI. DAUPHIN CO. PA IWAI Tl
e'l96.I0656 PAN ,,95'01301 4924.1993 C_.PL.CI. DAUPHIN CD. PA WOLP
e'l96.10657 PAIl ',95'OU02 1192 '1994 C_.PL.CI. DAUPHIN co. PA YOUNG
C""'IJ6JO PAIl 3'"'0130' 95-1305 COMH.PL.CT. LUZUNI CO. PA HOUUMAN
C"".IJ60' PAIl ,,95,01295 3"-1- 1994 C_.PL.CI. YOlK CO. PA LANDII
e"".IUlJ. PAIl ,,95'01306 94'IU.5326.01 C_.PL.CI. YOlK co. PA BALDWe N
eV95.1J6U. PAIl ',".OUl7 94'IU'4299.01 C_.PL.CT. YOlK CO. PA NUNN
eV96.1065. PAIl 1,95'01307 93-5316.01 COMH.PL.CT. YOlK CO, PA CADIK
CV9I6.I0659 PAIl ',95'0UlO 9205482.01 COHM.PL.CI. yo.K co, PA OleN
C"" ,12020 IC 8,95'02495 94'CP.04.1057 COMH.PL ,CT. ANOUION co. Ie CAOIlU
CV95' l2Qa I IC 8,"-Oa,00 94.cp.OH058 COMH.PL.CI. ANDUIDN co, IC 1IA1lU1
CV9I.l2QU IC 8'95'02502 94'Cp.D4.1056 COMH.PL.CI. ANDU ION CO. Ie ANoon
C"".IIOU. IC 8'95'03077 92,cp.04.1191 C_.PL,CT. ANOU ION CO, IC INI1H
CV95.12019 IC 8,95'02492 94-CP'39-180 COHM.PL.CT. PICKINI co. IC ItJlAI
c"".m78 TNW 2,95.02416 629Q7.210 CII.CI. IHILIY co. TN IIINIY
c"".m80 TNW 2,95.02423 94.203 CII.cT. IHIL8Y co. TN IIIWAII
CV96.1",,4" TNW 2,96'02054 95'8047 CII.CI. IHILIY co, TN HUNl
e'l96.11'" TNW 2,96'02055 95"044 CII.CI. SHILIY co, TN HILL
C'I96.11"6. TNW 2'96'02061 95"007 CII.CI. IHILIl CO, IN AOI L HAN
C'I96.11m. TNW 2,96'02082 95.8028 CII.CI. IHILIY CO. IN OIAN
C'/96'11778. TNW 2196'02083 95.8029 CII.CT. SHILBY co, fN OlcnON
e'l96.11784 TNW 2,96.02089 95.8035 CIR.CI. SHILBY co. IN 'OWLU
C'/96'1I7U. TNW 2,96'0209] 95.1039 CII.CI. SHILBY co. '" IIA'~ I 10"
e'l96'11800 TNW ~,96'02109 95.8054 CII.CT. SHILIY co. IN ~SHNI
e'l96.11014 TNW 2,96'02123 95.8060 CII,CT. IHILIY co, IN ICHooOIN
C'I96.11821 TNW 2,96'02130 95.8075 CII.CT. IHILIY co, IN WALl"
eV96.118U. TNW 2,96.02131 95.8076 crl.CI. IHILIY co. rN WNIII
eV96'118U" T~W 2,96'02132 95.8077 CIR.CI. SHILIY co, '" wnlllliORN
eV95.10749 T I "",00305 0'141260 1361H 0111. J"'UION co, II INOIIS
eV95.14394 TXI ,,95,00597 0'147,322 1361H 011T. JI"UION CO. II CAlOllA
eV95.14432 TXI ,,95,00641 0'146,560 U6IH OIST. JI"lllON W, IX LOl'Il
e"".,m9 TXI ,,",00562 "147,412 172NO 0111. JI"IRION co. II HlJIIlON
CV95.14424 TXI 1 ''''00633 "147,459 172ND 011T. JI"UION co. II YAII8
eV95.14449 fXI 1195.00659 !'146,581 172NO o 1ST . JI "IUON r.o, II NUIIl
eV95.14461 TXI ""'00671 !'144,806 I 72NO 0 IlT . JI/'UION CO, II SALLIS
CV95.14471. TXI ,,95,00681 !-147,769 172NIl DIIT. JI"UION tn, II InlCIARA I
eV95'14420 TXI 1,95'00629 A-147,506 58TN 0 III , JI"UION to, II PUOH
eV95.14444 IXI ',",00654 A'147,531 581H 011T. JI"UION to, TX VICIIRY
CV95.14450 TXI ,,95'00660 A'146,562 58TH 011T. JI"UICN (0, TX OAYIOln"
CV95.14340 IXI ,,95,00543 8-148,219 60TH 011T. J""'ION 10. II WA 110"
eV95.14499 IXI 1,95'00714 1.143,166 60TH 0 Ill, JI"UIOI Cll, II nAAIHII
e"".I4'05 TXI ,,95,00722 1'147,794 60TH 011T. J'''UION co, II PAl ""
cm.l0192 IXI 2,95'00075 17615 761H 0111. MaUll co, IN ANOUIO"
eV95.14643. TXN 3''''01756 94.026J5 10111 011I. OALLAl r.0, II IH).'ON
C'I95.10569 IXN 3,95'01143 9J.5214-0 1341H 0111, OALLAl (n, TI !CWOIIH
C~95'!!197. TXN 3,95'01111 9I.-1199-A 14TH OllT, OALLA! co, II SA IL II
eV9,., 05 75 IXN ],95'01150 IOOIH 011I, !lALLA! co, tl nOWIN
C'I95' 1]1 93 fIN 3,95'01068 9J-13318'H l601H 01lT, DALLA! r.n, II 40ANl
~
1"'-,
1. On or about Auguat 26, 1992, Plaintiffe filed thi.
aotion t.or pereonal injurie. alleging product. liability and
other cau'e' of aotion in the Court of Common Plea. of York
County, penneylvania.
2. The Plaintiff named Holy Spirit Hoapital, a Pennlylvania
ho.pital, a. a Defendant in the .tate court aotion.
3. Plaintiff a180 named Dow Corning Corporation ae a
Defendant in her 0... (hereinaft.r "Debtor").
4. Dow Corning corporation .ub.equently filed for
bankruptcy proteotion under Title 11 in the United statee
Bankruptcy Court for the Eaet.rn Di.trict of Miohigan on May 1~,
19915.
~. On Augu8t 8, 1995, as part of a massive removal aotion
to the Dietrict Court of Penn8ylvania pureuant to 28 U.S.C. 55
14~2(a) and 1334, Dow Corning removed this oase.
6. The removale were based eolely on the debtor's
bankruptcy filing and were not based on divereity of citizenship,
federal queetion, or other grounds.
7. On September 16, 1995, the ,Judioial Panel of MulU-
Dl.trict Litigation conditionally transferred this caee and tho.e
attached ae t;xhibit "A", along with many others, to thh
Honorable Court.
8. On September 12, 199~, the Honorable Denise Page Hood,
United statee District Judge for the Eastern District of
Michigan, entered a Memorandum opinion and order of the Debtor'_,
Dow Corning, Motion to Tranefer and a Memorandum Opinion and
""'"
".....
.
order on the Non-D.~tor'. Motion. to Tran.t.r, or4erinq that
Motion. .e.kinq to .ever D.btor and/or remand the olaim.
involving non-debtor'. .hould be qranted. (See attaohed Exhibit
"8".)
9. Th. Thr.. Judqe Panel 1n the commonwealth ot
p.nn.ylvania had indio.ted . willinqness to tast tr.ok some at
the attaoh.d c.... tor tri.l aq.illst the non-debtor manutaoturer.
and/or phy.ician. durinq the 1996 o.lond.r year.
10. plaintitt. believe, and aver, that sever.no. is
appropriate .0 that the ol.ims aq.inst the non-debtors oan move
torward without del.y.
11. Plaintifts beli.ve, and aver, that they will be unduly
prejudio.d it this Honorable Court does not grant this Motion tor
S.v.rance .nd Remand.
13. Plaintitfs believe and aver th.t under 11 U.S.C. I
50a(b) (1) the claims aqainst Debtor, Cow corninq, cannot be
dismis.ed with pr.judioe, in lieu of severance, as suoh action
would .llow the Debtor to objeot to the tiling of a proot ot
olaim.
13. None ot these oa... has alleqed a conspiracy t.heory on
the part ot the D.btor, Dow corninq.
, 'I
. ,
"
11M.'" A
~
~
" "
, i ,
., , ,
, ,
, ,
"
I' 'I
:'
I
" ,
,
'I , ,\
, ,
I,
"
I
,
"
"
I
,I
"
"
j'
I
I'
i.'
I
I
"
I'
~
~
JANET SZZ8Z,
Plaintiff
v.
~HI COOPER COHPANIES, INC.,
a O.lawar. corporation,
individually and a. luoc.llor in
int.r..t to Natural Y surgical
sp.cialti.., Inc., and
A..th.t.ch, BAXTER HZALTHCARE
CORPORATION, a D.lawar.
corporation, .. .uooe..or in
int.r..t to Heyer-schult.
corporation, Amerioan Hey.r-
Schulte corporation, and Am.rioan
Ho.pital Supply Corporation,
BRISTOL-MBYERS SQUIBB COMPANY,
COW CORNING CORPORATION, a
Michigan corporation, DOW
CORNING WRIGH~ CORPORA~ION,
. T.nn..... corporati~n'
APPLIED SILICONE CORPORA~ION,
. California corporation, I
SAMIR SROUJI, M.D., I
COSME~IC SURGERY CENTER, I
and HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, I
C
Defendants I
I,
I' ,
----------------------------------~---------~.~------.-~._._----
CUMBERLAND COUNTY NO.1 373 CIVIL 1994
MIDDLE DISTRICT NO. lC95-CV-1282
I
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF
ALABAMA NO. 96-P-10645-S
"
;, .1
,\
I,
I'
1 ,
"
, ,
,'"'"
("'"
18THER 8TONE,
plaintiU
1
v.
THI coop.a COMP~NIES, INC.,
a D.lawar. corporation,
individually and a. .uoo...or in
int.r..t to Natural Y surgioal
8p.cialti.., Ino., and
~..th.t.oh, BAXTER HEALTHCARE
CORPORATION, a Delaware
corporation, a. .uooe..or in
int.r..t to H.yer.schulte
corporation, American Heyer~
8chult. corporation, American
Hoapital supply corporation,
BAXTER INTERNATIONAL,
BRI8TOL.MIYERS SQUIBB COMPANY'
DOW CORNING CORPORATION, a
Mi,chiCJan corporation I DOW
CORNINO WRIGHT CORPORATION,
a T.nn..... corporation,
WILLIAM P. GRAHAM, III, M.D.,
AIlSTHETIC AND RECONSTRt1C~IVE
SURGERY,
'"
"
I,
,
~------------------------------------------_._._----.-.-----..-.-.-.
Defendant.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY NO.1 4106 CIVIL 1993
MIDDLI DISTRICT NO. 1195.CV.1283
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF
ALABAMA NO. 96.P.l0646.S
,I:
".
"
, '
"
~
t"'"
PAUlf CHUBB,
I
I
I
I
C
I
COW CORNING WRIGHT CORPORATION, I
COW CORNING CORPORATION and I
HARRISBURG HOSPITAL, I
c
C
IN TH~ COUR~ OF COMMON PLEAS
DAUPHIN COUN~Y, PENNSY~VANIA
plaintitt
v.
CIVIL ACTION " LAW
NO. 2112 S 1992
Detendant.
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
--------------------------------------------------.--~----.-.-.-.....
DAUPHIN COUNTY NO. e 2112 S 1992
MIDDLI DIS~RIC~ NO.1 119a-CV"1286
NORTHERN DISTRIC~
OF ALABAMA NO. 96"P-10647-S
'\i'
, ,
,
,
I.
,11,'
i,;
,
" ,
L,
, ."
, I
'f'll "
"
I,
',I' '\
,
"
"
" ,
"
JI Ii
'I
"
b
;"'l"
n_
"i
, I
,:
I,
'i
J
t"'I
I'f't.
PIANI
JAMIS
wU.,
DIMARIA-STALEY And
D. STALEY, hUlband and
Plaintiff.
v.
DOW CORNING CO~PORATION,
DOW CORNING W~IGH~ CO~PORATION,
DAVID C. LlBI~, M.D'L
~DINGL HERCEG , LEBER,
ASSOCIATIS, and
HARRISBURG HOSPITAL,
"
, ,
,
, '
Defendanh
-------------------------------.----------------------~.-_._------...
I
i
, I
DAUPHIN COUNTY NO. I 1191 S 1994
MIDDLE DISTRICT NO.c 11 95-CV-1287
NOR~HERN DISTRICT
OF ALABAMA NO.
96-P-10648-S
I
I
, ,
"
"
, I,
"
I,
, ,
,
,
"
I'
, ,
"
"
"
'I
Ii
~
I'"
~.N HARKLlROAD and KINNITH
HARKLJROAD, hu.band and wite,
Plaintift.
v.
POW CORNING CORPORATION,
POW CORNING WRIGHT CORPORA~ION,
WILLIAM P. GIBBONS M.D.,
Defendant.
,
),
~_._------~-------------------------------------~----~---~-_.~._-~-_.
DAUPHIN COUN~Y NO.
705 S 1994
MIDDL! DISTRICT NO.e
NORTHERN DIS~RICT
OF ALABAMA NO.
1195-CV-1291
I,
96-P-101550-S
'i
Jq
"
"
, '
,
,
1',
,
1'1
"
, I
Ii;
"
"
"I
, ,
I \I
'I
: I
,,1
.j
,
, ,
d
,",
I
"
"'"
BALLY HOPPHAN and LANNY
HorfMAN, huaband and wife!
Plaint!ffa
v.
DOW CORNING WRIGHT CORPORATION,
DOW CORNING CORPORA~ION,
~OHN C. SHANTZ, M.D.,
HARRIS~URG HOSPITAL, and
STEPHEN J. HERCEG, M.D.,
Ddendanh
,"""
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
------------------------~--------------------------~---.._---~.~----"
D~UPHIN COUNTY NO. I 3996 S 1992
MIDDLE DIS~RIC~ NO.e 1195-CV-1292
NORTHERN DISTRICT
or ALABAMA NO. 96-P-10651-S
i'
"
"I
I,
I I
I
I"
','
"
Ifi
\'i
'I
,
,
"
'I I
,',
"
I'
.,
Ii
"
"
,.
~
MARY C. IS~NIERG, Individually
and on behalf of all women who
~eoe1ved .ilioone gel implant.
.anufaotured by DOW CORNING
WRIGHT CORPORATION and/or DOW
CORNING CORPORATION durin9 and
after 1975,
Plaintiff
V.
DOW CORNING WRIGHT CORPORATION
and DOW CORNING CORPORATION,
Defendant.
~
I
I
I
I
C
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
C
I'
, '
-------------------------~-------------------..--.----_.-.._---~-.---
, ,
DAUPHIN COUN~Y NO. c 681 S 1992
MIDDLE DIS~RICT NO.c 1195-CV-1293
NORTHERN DISTRIC~
OF ALABAMA NO. 96-P-10652-S
N
I,
,'I
"
,
, '
"
. I ),
, ,
,
,II I
1 \ I I
,
"
, ,
'I'
,1,'1,
, ;J
" ,
"
"
l 'I 1I
I,'
..
, ,
,
"
t"'\
,-
AUDRIY DICK and JAMES S. DICK,
hUlband and wite,
Plaintitts
v.
ROBERT M. DAVIS, M.D.,
YORK PLASTIC SURGERY
A8S0CIATIS, LTD.,
COW CORNING CORPORATION,
a Michivan Corporation,
THE COOPIR COMPANIES, INC.,
a Delaware corporation,
Individually and as SUccellor
in interest to Natural Y
sur9ical Specialties, Ino.
and Aesthet.ch, BAX~ER
HIAUTHCARI CORPORATION,
a Uelaware Corporation as
luccessor in interest to
Heyer-Shulte Corporation,
American Heyer-shulte
Corporation, and American
Hospital Supply corporation,
CUI CORPORATION, individually
and as luccessor in interelt
to Cox-Uphott International,
MEN~OR CORPORA~ION
a Minnelota Corporation,
Dotendants
, "
I ,
, ,
-----------------------------------------------------------...-------
YORK COUNTY NO. 92-SU-5482-01
MIDDLE DISTRICT NO.e 1195-CV-1310
NORTHERN DISTRIC~
OF ALABAMA NO. 915-P-101559-S
'I
"
""'"
,
"
,,'
..IT .
I"',
"
:1
'.,'
.,
,
,
. '.Ii
,I
"~,I
Ii
,
,
, "
,.1 ,')
"
,
,
,
, '
"
,
1,1
'I
'iil
I
,I
"
I'
"
"
'I
,
" ,
.
,.....,
~
(
UNITED ST/\TES DISTRJCT COURT
E....Sn:R.~ OISTRJCf 0' MICHIGM'i
SOUTHERN DIVISION
c:: !f
"";n
'"
.' - -
... "
Cl, . .....,
""'<:I -.'
.=il,;. .:::. .~
3:' ...
.. -. ...
ID R.l
DOW CORNING CORPORATION.
,..
.,,'.
"
D.blor.
I
HO~DEN~EP""GEHOOD
MIl'dORANQtJM OPINION AND 9RD~~
ON no; D~BTOR DQW CORNING'S MOTION TO rR...\i'/S~I;B
.
r. INTRODUCTION/r ACTS;
Thli mllter Is before the COUll on the Deblor Dow Cominll Corpllratll>n', mOlion 10
lransfer certain brtLlI Implant cases to the L'nit.d StattS Dislric:t COUlt. !lourem District of
:'\.fichljan pursuant to 28 U.S C. ~ 157(b)(5), Responses were !lied and a'hllarina IVLl h.l..! on
the malter.
At the I>nsel. thot COUrllS v.ry cognizant of the righls of the claim4lllS IOvol~ed in thiS
malter under our judicial sysrem as well iU lhe prolections afforded 10 the Debtor Dow CominS
under our bankruptcy laws. With th.se $Om.timll complllinil Interesl.! in mind, liI. Court has
anempted to balonct lhe riahl.l o( both lhe Deblor and the claimants in ItJ dllCisiQn.
On :'\.fay 15, 1995, thlt Deblor. Dow Cominl Corporation. SQUlht a VOIUIII&ry petilion for
reorganlzanon WIder Chllple! II of chit Bankruptcy C"d~ 'Nllh the Bankrllplcy COUrl orthe Uniled
Sllll.S Dislricl :COUrl. Easlllm Dlslricl of Michllan. Northern Division in Bay ell)', betvl' thll
Honorable ,~rlhurf, Spector, On fune 11, 1995. the Debror tlled a mOlion to lrOllsier certllJn
brUSl implant cases ber'ore the Bt.nJcrUplCY Court. Juo~e Spector enlered a Del.minalion :IIld
R~pl)" and Re~l)mm.nd~lion R'i31ding the Oeblor's \Iollon ro rrUls(~r on June 11, 19<J~
, ,
IA. ·
~
1"'0
(
Indl~alln8 thaI the Olmicl Court had Jutildl~don Ilver ellis mOlion. On July $. 1995. rlU. Co","
entered III order provisionally tnnsl.rrins the opt'OUl breul impl4l11 Cil#~~ Iflvolvinlllhe Doblllr
only 10 Ihe EUlem DI,lJ'iCl o( Mlchisan pendlna a Ileal Ins scheduled (or lhe modon on July 3 I,
199',
Debtor Is a leadlna producer o( silicone products. Dow Comin, W81 limned in 1943 iU
. corporadon owned by Comin, Incorporlled and Dow Chemical ComplllY (each hu a '0%
ownenhip Inleresl) to develop and prodllce ,ilicones and silicone producl' durinl World Warl!.
In 1994, ch. Debtor Oow Comln,'s 10111 sales were nellly S2 billion. Tht OtblOr manufacrurtd
brta.1l ImplantS (or commercial lue from 3ppro:dmately 1964 until 1992. Durinl 3 part o( tllis
lime, the O"blor also supplied ccrtllin raw mllellals to ocher brelUl implonl monuflcrurers.
Accordlnalo lhe Otblor. in the YUt of ilS hiliheslsllcs in 1991, brusl implonlS only accounled
r.,r Ius than I ~~ of the Deblor' 5 sales.
Sillcont iel bru.sllmplanls consisl of a silicone .Iaslomer "envflope" fllled Wllh silicone
iel. The Implonl' :ut surgically implant~d for purposes of breast reconslruclion In brellSl cancer
pOllents and for cosmetic reasons. These implants have the same chemical make up 35 silicone
mlllellals us.d to make cllth"er5, shunts. pacemaker leads and other medical devices,
In thili ellly 19805. silicone breuI implants were subJecl to o~c3sional product IIllbiliry
lawsuitS. By 1981,50 such lawNits had been flied. In 1990 Ind 1992. over tOO l~wsu\cs wer_
flled asain.l the Deblor. However. beliMina In 1992. the Impl3nllilllalion .:1rasti~ally incrta.ed.
Over ),000 s~u were /1Ied aglinstlhe Debtor in 1992. over ~,OOO in {Cl9) and over 7,000 in
1994, The Illlgauon includ.d both individual claims and aClIon. on behalf of j:lullltive cll1sses,
By euly 19cH. the Debtor WI1:l a Otr'endanc in 4S pUl311Ve class action lawsulrs (J I In ":UllllJS
:
l l
1""'1
,.doroJ dlMCI cQum. 12 In $lIlt CQuns 3lId 1 In Canada) ill\d ov.r ,19,000 Individual law.uh..
All tho ,uiLJ combin.d Involv.d more IhM 36.000 clalmanl', Tht! D.blor Wll.$ ,ued bOlh 1II1ho
manl.Li,clUI.r of br,ul implNu. iIIld supplier 01' silicon. raw malerlals ro ocher brCll.$1 implanl
manufacturers.
-
Accordlnll co the D.blor, ehe.. claim. Ulliform.lly all", lh.. breUI implanr, CQUI'
dl....... lncludinl aUloimmun. dlseLl', scl.roderml, syscemic disorder,. Joim swelling a.nd
chronic fadlue, Th. damaltS SOUl hI In rh... CLl.S .,. subslanllll, ranlinS /'rom hunweds of
lhowand. 10 lens of million. of dollan in compllnsalOry II1d punlliv. dam..... Clllm. involvinl
m.cho.nical defece., Includlnl ruplUre of Ih. implanu. IH also ~1'Il.d by th. clalmanl4,
tn lun. 1992. pursuane (0 28 U,S,C ~ 1407. lh. Judicial Pill\el on ,lifulci DislriCl Lillglulon
(":'vfDL") ordered lhac f.d.ral ~clion. involvinl brea't implanl' be tr4llsferred to lhe Honorable
SIIltI C. Poinl.r In Ihe North.rn Dlslricc ilf ..\!abama for coordlnat.d or ~onsolid'led pretrial
proceed'nlls ("MOL No, 926"). rn r. Silicone ael Breullmplanc. Producl. Liability Ulill3lIQO.
\.lDl 1'10,926.793 F,Supp, 1098 (1,P,~U.. 1992),
The D.bror assert. thaI ~, thll Iilil~cion pro,rlSS.d, so did efforts to achieve a II10baJ
resolution of this ~onlroversy. Alehough the Deblor contends Ih.:lt it. products were sat'e a.nd did
nOI ClU'~ the diseases bein. cllimed. il wu ~ompelled 10 r.cognize thaI its rcsourc~s w.re Mt
unlimited and char the Iiligalion WLl divertlnl ma.nalem.nl's allenlion from che compo.ny', Celre
busin..... and rhll lh. cost.! of conrinued lirilllcion would be SUb'l,wial. According co the
o.blor, in 1994, iu lilillacion COSIl e:(ceeded 5200 million
At'ler monchs of n.golillions Wilh co"j.fcndanrs and ~laim~nrs. 4 court. approved "SI..rine
Comznillce" reprcsenr'"l brel$t implanl c1aimanu. the D.blor 3nd ~Ih'r implanc InlinufacNr.rs
J
. .
~
~
.ne.red inlO II "lIlobaJ ""'em.nl" of brell.ll implillll claim. on M:l1~h 23, 19904, Th. Deblor
I
allrted co conlribult up co $2,02 billion (OUI of 3 lotal ,,<<I.m.ne of $4,H billion) llf the fundlnll
required by che ,,<<I'menl. Judec Polnler 3pproved lh. "nl.m.ne fJ Ibir Md r'ASonabl. in I
Scplember 9. 1994 Order atI.r c."lfylnll one of Ihe con.olldaled f.deral IClloN as II cllll' ICIlon
for purpos.. of ,,<<lemenl under F.tj.R.Clv,P. 2J(b)(J).
fl app.ar. thaI the II10bal .e"l.menl did nOI re.olv. the conl1over.y lIIld the funu. of chae
I",cem.nl. II chi. lim.. i. In qUllllon. Fiul, th. AiJ'lIm.nt i. over.ub.crlll.ld In lhlllho cfllm.
b.ln, made Ilaln'llhe 1I1Ibli.h.d funds c.~c~.d the D.fendanlJ' fundlnll ~ommilmenu. S.cond,
numerous claimanl' have opred 1101.10 pl11lclpllle In the ""'eme/ll. .Ieclinll in.sroild 10 pursue
individu31 luil.. A. of M31' 1995, over 6.000 claimanr. h3d opltd OUl of the IIlobalscnlcmenl
and 31e pursuinll individual aCUon. ("OpI.out" claimants), The Debtor .1.Slerts chll II cannol boch
fund lhe ,,"Iemene and concinue 10 incur sUbStanlialllull3rion CO.l. in cOMecrion with lh. OP.I'OUI
cl3imanls. The,e opt.our claim, which led 10 COSIly proceedinlls in srare court.. are a majur
reason ror th. Deblor's d~cision 10 seek bankruprcy proreclion, accordinlllo rhe Debror.
In early 1992, Ihe Food 3l\d Drug Adminj,rrGlion ("FDA"l, asked for a \'olunto.ry
mOrllOl/um on the production of bre3.St implilllts. Since Ihal time. the Debtor hi\S rried to verdicl
SIX bre4S1 impllllll c.ues involvinll nine cloim~ls, The jury rerumed 3 verdicr in favor of che
Deblor in chree ot' the CIlUS; in favor of Ihe plaintiffs in lWO of the cues: lIIld in the SiXlh (,ase,
involvlnlllWO plainliffs. rhe Jury found In favor of one plaintiff and IlIainst the orher, ,~caordinll
ro the Deblor. none of chI juries have aw:uded punlcive damllles in rhe posl-moroloriurn trials,
The Debtor I$.e", ChOl breast implanl trials 31e rlm~.aonsumjnll. Comple~ scienlilic
evid.nce i. involved in v:uiou. seienritlc /Ie Ids, The above trials rlnlled In l.nlth (rom tWo 10
~
;. I '
""""
1"'.
.I.v.n w..ks. .xcludina mO/llh. of preparacion Ihal prtc.ded 4Bch lrial. Accordln" 10 lhe Debtor.
,
lh. c.nlrallllue WLl che sam.: wheth.r slllc~ne gel brewll impllllllS caus. diseu.. 'rhe D.blOf
IlUIm. eh.llh. comple~ley Qf rhe CLles placed ilC a subslantial disadvo/llase lIS effort. to d.al wllh .
the OPI-QUC ~laims which were b.lnll pursued In slac. courts. The Slace proce.dlnss wert
Ul\coordin.l.d and tri.1 dores were Qvcrlappinll. '."hen il med for bankruplCY pro lie lion, lhc:
Deblor f.c.d .pproximal.ly nineey rri.l. over the nll,'t six monlh., lneludlnal.v.n lri.,. with
Iwenry-elahl plaintiff. In TexLl durina the monlh of June 199.1. From the Debtor', p.rspecllve.
the.. clll\llieelnli lrl.1 sertins. maced frlllllie condlclons thac made il Imposslbl. co fairly,
.
ralionally, and cf/lelcnll:.' resolve the centrol sciemirlc issue of wheeher implancs caus. the
dlsel14'S Ihol are all.lled, The Deblor SIDles chae ie could noe suc~wnb 10 t~orbiranl s.ttlement
demands nor could ilia ro triol knowinll thae il could nOI musler the resourc,u necessary 10
mounl an effeclive d.fense on so nlany fronts simultaneously. The Dolblot claims il WIIS fl.lrced
to seek b.nJcrUPlCY prolectlon under ChapI.r II of th. Bankrl/plcy Cod.. However, desplle the
Chapeer ! I proceedinlls and rhe auromalic sloy provIsions of II V.S C, ~ 362, che breast implanl
Iitia:llions irl sellll.lnlloinll, Plalnllffs throughout the t.:nlred Slares hl1ve tlled nOllces of nonsuil
l1il1insr. dismissals of illld mocions 10 s.v.r the Debror In order to proceed co trilll a~ainsl Dow
Chemical Co, and/or Cominl. lnc, In fune and July 1995, suils allainS! Dow Chemical and/or
Comins wet. sel for trial in numerous counli" \hroulihoul Texas.
Thol Deblor hLllnvlsio.lned menrl.lly 1 four. step process in ilS reorianlzaelon proccedinlls,
The Deblor's proposal claims to hive laken inco ilccounlche SUbSLanlivellnd procedural rights of
che OPlol.IUI claimants Ill\d also ensures the integrity of the bankroprc:y plroceedinll. The firs! slep
IS the remov31 to local faderill distrtce courtS of 'C.:lce optot)ut c1ilims involvlnll the De-bcor',
5
. .
~I)N I,': II '.I.X H~ H~ lI~l~
1HELLER, L /I, e
~
.-
(
Implanll pijUuanl 10 28 V,S.C, f IH~(~J, The ltl:ond ,I.p I, the irl.llMt mOllon 10 1'4Il".,
o ,
wh.lch IlIek" 10 have all of l.he opc-out aCllon4 th.n transferred 10 the Eurem Dlltricr of MichJ,lII.
Should Ihe second Ilerl b. il'8l1Ied. lh. third ,rep I, a mOlion to consolidat. lhe tr4ll,ferred claim"
and an ..,Iy 1,lal on Ih. threshold IUUi~ ~f whether implanl' caus.:! the di.u,.. beinll -.laimer!
pursuIIII 10 FlId,R.Civ,P, 42, The COUrlwoijld OVtrSlIe a con,olidaled, advtrlll/')' trial thaI would
focus olllh. scienlillc evidence 3S II r.lales to Ihe core Issue of causalion wtuch would be bindilll
on all Opt-OUI clalmanes,The fourth Sl.p Is for the bank.nJprcy COUlt 10 conducl III eSlimac/on or
other valuOllon proc"dlns, lakinS Inca accounl lhe Iuulr, of the Ihreshold trial on causal/on. 4Ild
10 a"prove a plan of reolsaniUlil)n' thaI is consisrenr with char determinarlon, Additional
proceedings m3Y be Ihercafter .;!tlcrnlln.d by the Court al th. conclusion of the uUmalion or
valuation proceedinls. raking into accounc lh. bankruplcy COUrl's plan of ItorSllUuclon,
The Official CommlC1.. or' TOrt Claimants ("Tllrt Claimanls" or the "Committee") aue"s
in its brief In OppOSllion to lh. Debror's ~(ocion to Tlansfer thac Daw Chemical a.nd Ihe Deblor
knew of and concealed flom Ihe public substantial dm sugge'llns rhal silicones IVere danlerous
IQ thlt human body, NOIWithslandins lhe Debtor's and ill partllls' repeated assUlances to Ihe
public thaI it$ products were .3(e, JUlY awar.;!s, stC1lemenls and .1 very large proposed class
seulemenr rellecr Chill Ihousands Ilf women have suffered Injuries U a result of r.ceivins lhll
,
impll11Hs. The Commilltc asserts thar apOrt from rhe issue of disease caustllon. m;l,l\Y bre,ul
imphllll recipienls have been injured and orten hombly SCoUred by rhe f\lpnlflns 01 lellklnll of
implants, Coonl/e... others fear ChOI their impli1/\cs mol)! rupcure or lellk In Ihe furure. These
womltn ot~lhel ~Qve h3d or will need II) hal'e COSIly ~nd painful "expllncalion" sursery co removlt
Iheir implanrl and are encilled 10 sUbStantial dam Illes lesardlus of whltther lhe Itaklnl silicone
1\
I ,
1I~.I~ 03 ~IJI~ l~:ll ,~X H~.\l~ 11911
""""
'lH~LL~R, L 4 .
I".
.1'0 ~~u..d · "di,usa." Th. Commln" furth.r .u~'r1S challhll in~jd'nc. of vatlou. ~ondhlon.
vati.. with .a~h womill dcpcndln~ un Ih,Ir Pllll~ular medlc~l hisrory and bjCllolIl~al
chattce.rlselc.,
Accordln. 10 lhe COOlln!"ee, "v.ral juries of the Unh"d Slaee. have eneored v'relICtl,
r.n,ln, Ineo che million. of dollus, holdlnl Ihe Oebeor lIabl. for Injuries ~au.cd by h. brellll
implantS. Th. Commicrc. u,cn, ehll the Oeblor hopa. co wipe OUI chcs. jUd,menl' and Ihis
hlllo')' ,hould II prtvall In one conso/ldal.d crlal in Ihi, Dlslrice Illd ellmlnale Ir,lIabilily 10 l.ns
or hundr.d. of IhoUS4J1d. of inj urcd women.
Th. Cornmlcree stal&~ rllal whHe m. Iloba' slnl'm.nl approv.d by Judl' Poinler 01' Over
$4 billion, Is sizable, il is insufllci'nl to comp'nwe lhe p/alnlll'fs for lhe Injuries Ih')I have
suff.r.d, Cn t r'port r,'ca.sed on Jun. 15, 199' by lh. cl.lms admlnistralor appointed by JUd,e
I
I
Poinler 10 impl.menl Ihe alobal It""m'ne. Texas Slaee Coun ludg. Ann Co~h.tIll1. 440.000
wom.n have r'li'lered under rh. serllemenl ~, pOlemial claim3llrs,
In Irs ,\lolion 10 Transfer, th"! Commme. aSSe"s Chal the Deblor has wreaked procedural
havoc by r.mo\'lnl numerous pendlnl Slale COUrl cases ro f'd,r.1 courts, ."'any ot lhes. ClSts
have ,ub,.qu.nlly bean trlll1sf.rr.d to IUdie Poinrer IS "ta~'alon8" ~ues by rhe MOl. PIll.r.
These ca,.s Join ch. mar. man 10.000 aCllons cQl'lier trlll1sferred to ludle POinter pUrSIJII111 co Ih.
~lDL Panel's d.l.nnlnarlon thll Joinl pretrial proceedinlS b.fore Q sinll. COUrt rhac could dev.lop
SUbSllll1clat .:ocP.rtlse would Conserve reSOurces and besc serve lhe inler.slS ot all pilnies.
"~~orclinllo the Commillu, lh. Oeblor'i acrempc to cransfer 311 OPHUI actions to chis ellUI1
would run rou,hshod o',er rhe ~onsld.red JudsmenlS of the ,'viOL Panel 3nd uMe~euuiJy plac~
rhi. COUrt on a colliSIon course wich ludi' Poinl.r. The CommlClte .uS.rtS thal/uo;lle Poinror
i
I'
I'
I'
;'
I,
I
,
110, I.' 03
HI.IS L3: Ll F\,~ ZI3 H~ "Oll
""'"
1HE~~E~. ~ " a
I
QlII: I
-.
h.. aequir.d III intimal' Md unrl~lled familiarity whh lh. bru,tl Impl11/l1 1IlIIItion .iac.
prtaidina over chI con.olldated prfotl'iaJ proceedin~. in the thoUWIds of pendln, r.d.ral breJIII
implant .uil. in JUlI. 1992. JUdse Poineer has supervi.ed discovery rhle h., Inolud.d
approximll.ly 22' deposlcions and produceion of some 10 million P'ltS or docum.nlSllld hill
pr..ided over complex and l.n~rhy proceedlna'lo appro~e alId Implem.nllh. alob.l s.nl.m,nl
.inee sprina 1994.
Th. Commiltee further uurtS rhlt th. Debtor's par.nt corporations, Dow Ch.micAl and
Corninl. Inc. ar. mer.ly cryln. eo rid. the Call calls of chI Debtor's banlt.ruplcy proctCdlnl' In
order to benet1t from ehe Debtor's pr6tectior. Ul\der the banJuuprcy (BWS
The issues before the Court an: I) ....hether 11 has jurisdiclion eo Irlllsi"r the cll1lm"
Involvlne the D.blor; 2) If th. Co un does hav" jurisdicrion III transfer the claims, whethcr the
COUll should Ibslaln from exercisinl irs ~ulhoriry', 3lId J l w)ether il has jurisdlctllln over the
claim. al.insl the Shareholders.
II. "':-fAL YS!.S;
A. Wbed,.r this Court nas (he iUr'lsdiccion 1nd 3uthorhv to trllns(., the GO".
to lh. 1:.0 of Mlchlun oursuanr to 2S use. S I Hlb)l51,
his UlIdlsputed lhac the D.bror's bankruptcy case is pendlnl before the Bankruplcy Court.
01' che Unired States Olsll'ict Coun, Ealltm Distrlce of l"lIchil.n, This Court has oriainal I1/Id
e:'(clu,ivejuri,dlcclon orthe Debeor's litle lllctlon pursuant eo 29 US C. ~ I )101(B). 2S US,C,
~ t 57(b)(') provides that this District Court has the authomy to delemin. the trial venue of lny
p.rsonal inJ~ eon claims InvolvIMlthe D"bror:
(') The districc court shill order tnac personal injury con
and wronltl.il death claims shall be tried in th. disttlcc COurt In
which the blllkr'Jptcy case Is pending. or in the dlslttc:t cllun in th.
9
Il
1HnLiR, Lilli
II~, L,;, ~~ ~l.IN L~: L2 ',\.t H.; H~ "1112
...~
-
distri~l in whl~h !he cl.lm aro... " d.lermin.d by !h. dlsrr!cl court
in whJch the banFPlCY cas. i. pendina.
Personal Injut)' ilJ\d wronal\d d..ch claJmanll are lptcirlcally SUbJ.Cl 10 lhe oV.r"~hJnK
b4l\kz\lplCY policy of cenll'alizlnll mu. tortlillaalion so thnl th. clilimanta' Jut)' tltal riahll u.
preserved. LIlftIl.nIClllnp v, CuIQ, 498 V,S, 42 (1990). Section 1 HCb)(5) trues p.rsollAl injulY
cl.lms Sf . spacl.l clus wilt\ln the realm ot bl/lkrlJplcy law. C~lum.t N.t'1 !lank v, LilY!"'''. 179
8.R. 117, 120 (N.D. Ind. (995). This section confers tnllllaed power. upon lh. dlsrzicl court
wh.re the bGllkruplCY .ction was /lied to fix venue of p.rson.1 In)ury clalnu Blurn'art v.
F.ldl,14 Aircraft Cor;.. 981 F.2d 824, 832 (51h Clr, 1993), WT. d.nied. 1\3 S.C'. 2963 (1993).
The dl.tricc court wllm !h. blllllwplCY ~clion was mtd hu th. .01. authority tor uhlm.lCly
f1:dnltllc crlal venue for p.rson.1 injUl)l ~~lIons alainsl the b.nktuplcy d.btor. Ca/urn.!. 179
8,R. al 123,
B.
If IhJ. Coun does h....e iunsdl~llon. wQ"h.r Ihi. Coun has rite a~~o~~
to Ir:ll1sfer ceruln Oot'OUI claims tram th. ~rol Danel. C~:nNO, , d
MOL Judll' in th. NO, of .....labam:110 lh. E,O, of Mlch' .
Tile TOI1 CI8lmanls iIllue lhal lh. MOL Pnn.I's pr....ious order prump" this COW1'S
aUlhoriry 10 lranst"cr cen.in OPI'Olll claims from th. :-'IDL Panel. Cu. No, 926 10 this COUrt
OTher responses and objeclions flied wilh thIS Co un hll~e also iIllu.d lhac litis Court has no
3ulhortry to cransf.r cues from other dlslliclS and thaI only tho.. dislr!cc courts h..... lh. Iluchorlty
co IIWlsCer cases. aen.rally, the dislricl court 'Hh.re the lull is pendinll h... thot sole auth~rity to
lran,fer a sull, However, with "llIlds 10 3 banlc1upccy sClion '.!o'h.rll p.rson.llnJW')I 1011 clnlms
:1re involved,:lhe FoUlth Clrcuic In [n rt A H, R9bins Co.. Inc, ill F.2d 994 (4th Clr, 1986),
celt. d.nl.d. ..\79 US, 876 (1986), n.ac.d:
9
I ,
lie, I', e~ ~I,II~ I~: I,) ',~.I 2U H~ 1I~1:
..,...~
'Ht:~~ER, ~ .... I
@II21'
... A. Ih, JPp.lIl111lS correclly ~l)nSlT1J' (25 U,S,c;,1 "cllon 1412,
lh. authoriry to erlNfer . suil under Ih.1 $l'MI IU" 10l,Iy with
the COUll in wllleh lh. lull i. plndinl 3IId il provide. no auchor/I')'
whalSolver 10 a dl.cricl coun .iltini in bA/lkruPICY in on, dlmel
and havln, jurl.dlcllon of rh. banJ<rUpICY 10 Ir.lUlcr Ih. venuI of
I cue 3'41nlllhe bl&l1.ktupr III lIIIolher dlS/rlcl. Seclion 1 H(b)(').
however, expr.ssly confer. on rhe dilllicl coun ,inln, In
banJcroplcy and havinl jurisdicllon o)r' lh. bankruplCY proceedin,.
Ihe power 10 fh the venue of any ton cu. ...Inll the deblor
pMdlnl in ocher dl'lrlclI, Th. purpose of this laner 'lalUte, WU,
a. Con.rtuman Kasrenmelr d.clllIld, 10 c.nlllllize lb,
Idmlni.llallon of the ..~re and 10 ellminarl Ihl 'multipllciry of
forum. for the adjudlcacion of pare. or' a bMkruplCY COoH,' (Citl
omined) Thl' purpose IVould be Ihwlllted and chI plein lan",..e
or' IIclion 157(b)(') nullilled if lhe power of ChI dlllricl COll11
,Ininl In banJcruplCY ~o f1~ Ih. venue (or Ion claim. a.aln~ a
d.blor was 10 b. preempt.d by the provision. of section 1412, We
do nOI believe Ihi. 10 hlv, been lhe imention of Con.reu In
.nactlna :he two sratlltn, Section 1.17(b)( 5) WI:! drafted 10 cover
the procedure in cOMeclion with 3 special ,roup of cases, 10 wil,
ctrsonal inlurv rort claim) a~lIIinst :1 d"bror in Chapter l t
prp~lf.din~J whenever p.n.dlnR and tn thaI COMltCllon lhe se~ti~~
,i. suorell1l, In 311 oth.r caus rllaled ro Ihl ba.nJc.ruptc>,
proceedinl', how.ver, Ihe aeneralslalule (i e" s.celon \412) would
lovem. This, WI Ihinle. I. thl proper conllruCClon to be ilvln Ihe
tWo ~ralUt~S II is a conslruction which hormonizes Ihe cwo
s.ctlons, Ie ~onforms 10 Ihat ~sr3blished cill10n of Sllnnory
conStruceion Ihlll '(wll mU'1 rud lhe SIOllltCl (In Iho.e inltancts
where rhere is 3IIY pOSSible ~ontllcll to live err.CIIO IIch If we
con do so while pr"'"rvlnll rheir sen~. and purpose,' (citel
omined) To) accept the app.Uanls' Inclrprelolion :and 10 nelate lilt
plain la.n.ua.. of ~ I '7(b)(5) 'would '1iolalllhe buic principle t)(
constructIon challl'Nlts should be rcad, If possible, I:! harmonioUl
1.:(15.' (cites omin.d) We, therefore, have no difnculty In findln.
thot th. distriCt ,~d.,1IS luthothv to ti:< vtnuct 0' ~crson.l iniurv tort
actfonll1l.irtsl fhe d.,btor .~ist!l under $ I S1fb)i'" irre!lo.c:tiv~ ~r
the di:nricr in which ~uc:h controlw'ersv is o.ndinL (emphasis
add.d),
.
7S1 F,2d &I I ~ II. [n eh. A,H, Robins CU" the Court wenr on 10 11m rhallhe nrst and prlmary
purpose or' lh. proceedin.1 i. to a.c.rtaln whecher a fair ,.or.anl1&llon 01' rho deblor can be
lIchleved, lit. 3t 10 I:, This PUrp"IC may lloeU be complerely Ihwarted i( the eneraies 01' the
II)
iHILLER. L 4 .
"' l~"'~ )Il)/j l~:l,l F.\.~ lU H~ lI~jl
.-,
-
I
d.blor', e;(ecullvu :uld ornc." are inili,lIy Ilivened by, and the r'soulc~, '" Ih. cJeblor II.
dluipll.d In, the upen... of 1l11,'Iln, chI rrill of lhou.and. o( per.onol injury 'lIil' In COllrtl
lhroullholll the land .pr.ad over an inrerminlbl. period of rim.. UI.. No prolJl"u alonll
"limAllnl rhm conlinlenl ~Iajml CIll be mid. unlll all claim. Illd 'Uill alf c.nllallzed before
a slnl" forum wh.rl all in"ruLS can be I1urd and in which the inl.reslS of all cll,lm4n1.l with
one anolh.r may be harmoniz.d. LIl. 111014. Howev.r, it should be nOled rJlll.....H. Robllll did
nOI oddr.u a .ilulllon involvin, a banJctuPICY coUrt, a dl,tricI coUrt slR/n,ln banJcruplcy, and
claiml previously trlllsferred by Ihe MOL 10 3IIOlher dlslricl coUrt.
.
The ~OL hu it.s ~ulhorily 10 Clllllfer "civil aClions" (or pre.criel proCtedinls under 23
u S.C. ~ 10107. Th. ~lDL hll:l recolnlzed Ihe bankruplcy .IIY aloinsl biU\krlJpr defendants before
It and Ihos. claim, Ihol I10\'. bun sIayed remain ,toy.d In ch. Irans(.re" coun of the MOL. III
r. ",.beslGs Prod. lla. lit, 7il F.Supp. 0115. 0121. nOI' 61).P, ~I.L. 1991). The :-.rcL PQl1.1 hu
nOled chIS I Ihe IranJter.. coun ,hould coordlnal' wilh che concemed bll\knJplcy coUrts. 771
F,Supp. oc411. n. 6. In~. Ape/< Oil Co" 980 F,2d 1150 (8ch Cir. (992) also recOlnl2.d Ihllche
district ~ourt sillin~ in blll\krupccy has the aUlhorlty ro th che cri.1 v.nue under Seclion t $ 7(b)(')
or fO ,buoin from the 'UifS pendinl b.for. the MOL cran~teru coun. Based on chese cases. mis
Court has oUlhorley over che caa~s before Ih. MOL lhill are Che ,ubjecI o( fhe D.blor's morion.
c.
I{chis Court do.s have, luri~dicli~n. w:e~hber 1,~iS ~~~: m~~r ;~II~n c~
alcem.arivelv. 1!:(.rClS' Its dlsc:reu()n ~ 1112' 0 S r ,S,
$l3J~(cl.
I. ~randalorv :l.b~t.neion
A mOliQn under se".elon 157(b)(!), .Iso r.quir~s an 'bsf.nelon ~aJysls. 'n r. PflQ
Am.rlcan COI'll" 950 F.2d, S39. S44 (2nd Clr, (991). Th. Tort Clalm4nU' brier .2IId oeh.t
II
r
IilUH
, .
1I~.I.'. II~
~lJN l^' II FU 2l,~ H~ 1I~ll
~
iHELLER. L 4 .
iii":.
".....
CloimlllLl' objecllons :uld responses hive mov.d thaI Ihl, CoUrt abll.ln under 21 U,S,C.
91334(c).
Section 1$7(b)(4) provides chal "[nJon-core proceedlnl' under ~ I $7(b)(2)(B) 01' lhl, 23
(lIquidalion of personal Injury COrT or wron,t\l1 d.ath cUCJ), ,hall Qgj b.. ,ubjeclco the mandalory
ab,"nlion provtlion. c{ Seccion 1334(c)(2)." III r. P.n A(I1. 9'0 F.2cf al $4$: 28 V.S.C.
fIH(b)(4). This CoUrt is ,;(.mpled (10m mllloalory abseenlion under Secllon 1334(C)(2),
2. Oiser.lion.", Ablllotlon.
Cn their la.pon.CJ and III oral arlWDenl, thlt Clalmlllu' allomey. Utlcd thll the CoUrt
.
absellln from trwferrinl all of lh. bleaSI implanl cas.. Involvinl Ih. Oeblor 10 the EUlIm
Oisrrict of Michiill1\. specifically Oppo1inl lh. Deblor's proposition 10 hold one crlal on the issue
of cauulion for purposes ~(utimalion. For the reasons more (Ully sec forth below. cho COUrt
will nOlllbstain its juri,dlctian pursulIl\t ro 2S U S,C. ~ 1 3H(c)( I) althis time. Th. Court will
allow che Bankruplcy Coun to proceed wich che estimalion process withoul holdinl the ~ne
causOlion mal requesred by eh. Deblor.
Conlrlls lIu indicated thoc COW1. should nOI be coo quick 10 abslain from e;(ercisinl thair
Iransl"lfr pow.rs und.r 2S U,S,C. ~ I :l7(b)(S). In re Pan Am, 9$0 F 2d ill 845. Tr.nsfer ,hould
be lh. rule. absr.nlion ch. ,;(ceplion. l,g. The Court ,hould weigh lhe IdyancQI.s and
diIOdvan14se. advll1\ced II the h.arins. A,H, Robin., 783 F.2d 3c1016. Factor, enumetQled by
the A.H. Robin~ cue, Include:
~.. some CIUIS may be tully prepared Ql1d ready far Slare frlal.
. Some cues m.y require lubsrantial numblfrs o( local \Vilnesses.
Claiminl. may be recclvlna cricical medicllI, physic III or
psychololical CII. in a local area whicl1 would have to b" hall.d
or trll1\.felT.d to Richmorld. All ot'these t';!,Ctors 3re r.levllnl.
12
H
, .
II~, U \l~ 111)// U:ll '.\.~ ll.~ H~ lI~ll
1""'\
'HELLER. L 1\ .
-
,
LIl. II 1016.
Issues of stace law may also .ubscanlially a(feclthe resullJ in individual cae.. iIIId mUHI
I
be oonalder.d. Ld. The abll,ncion doclrln. m8n./(ell. federal resplCI for Srore law and pellcy.
In re Pan Aro, 940 F.2d al 846. Section IJH(c)(I) o(che BWruPlcy Code provldcl for
Ibalenclon by the dl.rricc court in such inllances:
NOlhlnl In chi. stcllon prev.nt.s a di.cricl coun in rh. Incer'lf of
jUlllce, or In rJI. lncerest of comley willi SlAce court, or r'sp'cI for
StAll raw, (rom ab.lIininl from hearinl a p4l11culu proceed In,
arislnl under clcl. II Or enslnlln or rei aced to a CIM under ticle
II.
2. V.S.C. ~ 1334(0)( I). In ln1. Pan Am. the Coun addressed two d'CES/OM by thc district COUl'l
involvinl Ir. abscenlion from certain cases. In re Pan Am involved the Lock.rbl. air cro.sh
. trllody. The MOr. plllel had enc.red an order Il'ansferrina oJl lhe federal cases 10 che EUltm
Oillricl of New York. The Pill! .A,;p. det'endanrs sUbsequ.mly t1/ed volunrary peeiliona for
reorlaniulion under Chapler II of the Bankruptcy Code, All ace/ons llainsr che deblors wero
SCly.d by II U S.C. ~ 362. SI10rtly rhcrufter, the PI1I1 A"1 dcfendalllS moved for an order
pursuant 10 28 U,S,C. ~ I $7(b)(~) crans/'mini (he FlOrida state,court Ictjllns. known aJ the
"Cok.r" and the "RoscnJ<ronz" actions 10 (he Southern DIStrict Court of New York, wh.re the
bll\knJPICY proceedinl WIJ m'd. ",e Pan ArTl d.btor, concemplal.d chac the ll'l1l1,Sr'er co lhe
Souch.m Dbll'lcl of New York would be follow'd by anOlher transfer to Ih. Eo.scem Dislrict of
New York where the MOt was pendina. The Districc COUrt in the Southem Dislrlct o( N.w
York decided 10 abslaln (rom I;(ercisin, the COUrt'strans(er power, in bOlh COm, On appe~l.
.'
rhe Second Circuit reversed the discricc COUrt's deCision as to che COktr d.r.islon becJu$o 1l1e
di.trict COUrt's actions w.re bas.d on improper considtr3Clons. The Second CirCUit held thllthe
lJ
H
,. 119, U. Il~ HUN lol' l~ F,U Zl.' .\l~ 111HZ
~
'HELLER. L" .
-
Coker action Involved federal law qucnhlnl, which could noc be Il bul, for ~bllenllon. Th.
Second Circuli, howevar, ~ff1nned the dlslricl coun's doci,ion wlrh r"sard. (0 lh" Roeenkt'na
",,,.coun aCllon becauee the COW1 found Ihl1lChe rwo.Slap rrll/lsfer plllll Would ensond.r funher
dalay II1d Illptnse. The debrors In the In re P:llI Am c.ue did nOI seek Clansfer o( th, c....
already before cho MDL co tIto dllllicl coun where the banktllpccy was pendina.
The Inuo of abscenclon In rell1lion to che MOL arose In In ra ..'.ou Oil Co..1lW.I. Thor"
tho Coun .Il\rm.d the dlstricc coun's decision co abstain while cho cllimllllt" Jlw,,,iu procted.d
In the mulrldisrrict trlll,fer.. r.oun. The deblOrs in OW had med Chlpler II bank.ruplcy In thq
Eallem Discricc nf MIS$Ouri. Acrin,llnder che authority of 23 U,S,C. ~ 1334(c)(I), the district
court abstained (rom lryinl the claims, reasoninl (h,Clhe MOL h3d lransferred the claim. to thll .
Eastem Dislrkc of PeMsylvll/Ila. Th. bankrupccy SIllY was I,fled '0 rhal the clalmllllu could
pursue cheir clalml in the Eucem DIStricc of PeMsylvanio. In.:iw. th. oppellanfS clwmed thaI
che MOL lied aUlhority co transe'er "IIlW'UltS" only, but nOI bankrupcc:' cl3ims, illld thaI the dl~lnCI
court', conclusion thl1Clheir "claims" had been transferred WIS fl.wed, R.vi......inl thaI decision.
the Eiahlh Circuil found thaI the dislinction between lawsuiu Il/Id c1aiml docs nOl neialo rhe t'ocl
chat the di'lrl~r coun h.d tho Slitrutory aUlhorlry to abslain whiht lhe cloJmanls' lawsuits
proceeded In che mulridlSlrtCC trwreroe coun. The Coun IIoTore "(eJllen thoual1 Che 'cllum,'
lhemselves may nOl have been crll1sferred. we arc rtOl convinced chal the dl,U'ict coun ~hould
Iller, for. b, obllled to condUCI dupllcarlve proceedings 10 ~lissourl, thus ,qualld.rinlJ the very
economics wh.ich are the purpose of the multidlSlricl transfer." 930 F .2d 31 115 J, The Dislricl
Coun'~ order requirinll 011 claimancs 10 proceed a~ainsl chd debcors in the ~IDL coun in
P'MJylvl1nia was .Iso all1rrned. the Ei8h1h Circuil re3Soninlchal II servfd the same purpose ;u
14
H
QlII,','
)11)// U: U P.\.~ lU H~ llOj:
""'"
'HELLU. ~ liI B
1""'1
I
lh. orilinll order r.qulrinll mullldlnrlct coordinallon of the orJlor r.I81.d CG.N..
Th. ralallon.hlp berween &ocrions I H(b)($) and lJH(c)(I), lJIe ,1bll.nrion IIlInll., WlllI
add,....d by the Sixth Circuil in In re l),Ihic. ,"'olor Cr'~il, 761 F,2d 27Q (6ch elr. 198.'). The
Si;(th Clrcul, sliced thlc in liqYidlltnll Ion m.. in bankrlJpccy, rJI. dlutlcl COUl'1 ,houJd I1Ul
,
dlclde whllh'r to leave lh. Cases with cl.ims in lho banJcrupecy COUll in rh. couru wh.r. chey
!
art p.nd/nl. r( che COUrt d.cldes '~alnSI lhll courSf, rh. Iltstricl coun mwtrh'n try rh. ~UI'
ill.lf or "nd them 10 lh. federal coun for th. diStricl in which lh.y arose. (g. II 273. rn_
I
~. 0 conllrmed plan o( reorlariiulion had .Iready b.en tSlIbllshed and only Ilquidlllon l)(
dam.,.. was needed. The Sixth G,lrcuic ~n.ly,is is InSltUCliv. in rhe in'lilIlI ~&Je, liven Ihol/llll
ch. tI'lm'lion procell hu noc b'aun.
The Oebror conlends char thc ISlimacion procclI would b. more .ccurare if I co1l.W11ion
trial wu held tlrst. Clalmanrs offer chalth. ..tim'lIon procUI could be accompli.hed wilh.in ,60
days. They araue tl1ar the 'slimacion process CIlII be auided by che OUlcome of several ICl\Illl
trials alr.olly h.ld a, well as the number and ~'alue of CQ.leJ pr.viou.ly "!TIed withlhe D.bror.
Th. Clolmanu fun her a~sert rhac valuallon of the variou, lype, of cases by dillQ.l.. and injurie,
alr.ady e;(I.I, ~s a rnUll of the Global SelTlementln th. brea'llmplanc cas", One cousollon lrial
" nOl needed for ch. esrimotion proc.ss wh.r. Informacion alrccdy e;(iSlS co accomplish lh.
CSlimarlon procu.. Th. .,rlmarion ,lould proceed before lria/.
Al or.lulumolnl. che Offlcial ComlllilTee of Unse~ured Credilon. ariuinl in favor of the
rrllll,r'.r of III br'lSl implanl casu so rhac one C4u'Olion crial CIlII be held for tho purpose or'
lIelmllion. addressed lour eues for the Court to use U 0 iulde f~r this propo,irion. Cir'd.u oS
mod., for chI cousallon trial is rn re BendlclIn litiI3!IIlQ, S51 F,2d 290 (6ch Cir 1933), ~
1$
J J
, .
"', lot' II~ ""N l~' U F.U :U H~ 1191:
'"""I
.'He~LER, L 4 II
~".u
I"""
~, 488 U.S. 1006 (19~9). In chal ~.1Ie, the Si;(th Circuli afllrmed the dl'lrlcr coUrt'.
lrlfurcacion o( th. IssuCJ lnvolvlni ~ product.s liability aClion. A1thauih the SI;(lh Circuli
~fI1rrn.d the decision 10 hold one trial on the C~US4110n only. lho Bendlclia caso did nOI involve
a banJctuplCY claim and the utimallon of ~ertoin unliquida.ed, conrin.enl cloim. from penonw
Injury ron clalms.
^ second case ciced in support o( lh. Deblor's posicion il In re Drlllel BlIn)llam lamberJ
OrouD. Inc.. 960 F.2d 285 (2nd elr. 1992). In lhac case. the discrlcl coUrt approved a seRlemenl
Igrttmonl involvlnlthe deblOr and a mandltory non.opl.oUI clan of clalmanl', However, there
wu no iuue of one causalion lrlal for the purpose of ollimation in th.1 cue. Tho Or.nl CIUf
involved a tettlemenl aireem.nc pendinl confirmation of the debtor', reorianizolion plan. A
causalion crlal WIU nOl involved in order lO eslimate the unliquidaled and contlnsonl claJ.ms in thor
cue. lc ,hould also be noted lhal the ~ CUe Joel nOl involve personal inJUly or wron,ful
Ilcolh claims.
The 1l1ird case is C.lo~e;( COrll. v, Edwards, 115 S,Ct 149J, 1498.1499 (199'). The
Celote~ c~se only address.s the issue of whether or 0101 che e;(.culion of a supersedeu bond bOoSod
on 3 judlmenl in onll discricc court i, relared to (he deblOr's bankruplcy pending in Ulolher
diSlricc COUrt. The co..se did nOl Involve rJle issue of a causlllion trial held for rhe purpose of
"limalion.
Th. A. H. Robins. WI1l. is Cil.d as the fourth case in t'avoI of che rran.fer of cases and
one ~lIusltlon/ll'l.i for che purposes of 'slimllion. In A.H. Rollins, the Coun no led lhar che
bOJ\kruplCY coun is nOl r.lleved of ics dUly in a Chapter II proceedlnll lO eSlimace those
conllnl.nl claims despice Seclion t 57(b)(5) OJId b.for. a crio11 is ~olTl/llenced. iS8 F.2d 31 1012.
16
H
, '
lie 4~:U
. 'I ,.. 'I~ ~l~ lIell
)lOll I.,:. .,.\.
,'HILLER. ~ $, .
"'"'"
-
The Third Circuit 'laled:
(
Section I $7(b)(2)(B) e~c.pcs from che derlnlliOll oJ' 'cor.
proceedin,.' perlonal rort cl~lm. ~,ainsl the d.blor. Th.
bankruptcy COUrt IS WilhoUl 'Uthoriey und.r (ho .o\CI Qver 'lh.
liquidation or .srimaeion oJ/' conein,.nl or un/lquldal.d pel'JonaJ
injury or wronal'ul dealh claim, aaalnsl the .srle. for PUlp014, o(
dlslribullon under Till. II' 28 U.S.C. f 1$7(b)(2)(D), (hlllc.
.dded) Ie will b. observed, how.v.r, thll the s.afllle denl..
oUlhurity to the bankruplcy COUrt 10 ""lm.,,' conlfnlenl claims
only If Ihe purpose is Co make I 'dlstribulion' o/' the U.II. o( lhe
deblor: the SliMe do.. nOlln expreu t.rm. deny 10 the bll'lkn.tplCY
COurt ch. authority, or relieve il of th. duty, 10 '..rlmal.' rhe
conlln..nl 'personll injury' claims for pwposc. of d.l.rrninin, the
(easlbility of a r.or'llliUlion. And such hIS be.n rh. cORllrucllon
of th. sralUre whIch ha"be.n adopt.d by the courts Which hove had
10 face rhe issue, the. rwo lcodinl cases ""inl proclldlnls arl.ln,
OUI o( the ubestos (hillllion. (cires omilTed) Borh of lhe.. ClUeS
hold thaI mimallon. of the deblors' pOlenrial personal injury eort
liabilitIes u an Incidene of Iho developmenr of a plan o(
"orl.nizallon It. cor. proceedlnll' Wllhin th. banktuprcy coun's
jurisdiction and thaI such Ullmallon. are nOI foreclosed by Seerion
157(b)(S) o( ch. ACI. ((oolnol, omllttd)
This i. nOl to say che PfrSonal cl.imanls in lhis proceedlnl
Will nOl be ultimarely 'nrirl.d, if 1l1.y .Iecl to do so. ro have 0 jury
trial of lheir claim in lh. .:ji.frICI court. S,ction 157(b)(5) liv..
lh.m thaI risht. Bur, even though (he 10rt clallnanl' may be
~nticl'd co their Jury IriaJs. rh. ba~rupccy ~ourl i~ ~~~ ~~~~~:: ~f
Irs durv In a ~h.Dt~r I r oroce.dlnq to l!!rlmaht h . to
Qiawu. The real quellion thr.u at/SelS as 10 which proceedi"IS takes
precedence, whether the estimation by the bankruptcy court of Ih.
claims or the Jury lriall in che dislrlcr COurt of che claims. The
aUlhorilies which have consid'red this queSlIon in cOMeccion Wilh
a compllcared products lS,bUlty siruarion .uch u lhis ~e all
unllllmous. The Ulim.li:~~ o~ l~~' ~~t~~~al ~~~ ~~~~~n~ ~:~;s ll~
(h. banknJDICV coun5 sh d r 'e ' tr 0 I
783 F.2d II 1012 ('mphlUis .dded). Conlrary 10 lh. proponents of lh. Deblor', mOllOI1 10
transf.r and t<1 hold ~ on. causation crial for purpose, of eSlimlcion, the ,.\, H Rabin. caee $larcs
thaI ch. eslimllion proc.ss shOuld occur first b.fore any trials Gre held. Th..o\ H. Robinl COllrt
17
~ ~
. ,
, ,
1I~, I", U
)II)/< 1~'4: F,\.~ ll~ Hij 'Hll:
I""',
~
I
Th. CoUl~ alJTlt, wilh the nndln, in A. H, R9b1DJ Ihal th. Bankrtlplcy COUI'l .hou/" f1m
t,elm"t tht W\Jlqwdal.d, conlinlcnl torr injUly ~/aim, before J lria' i. held. ^s rJ10 Cl.imlnl.
Ir,u., the tfllmalion procu, can be IccQmpllshed in a ,horr period of time. The Oeblor h.., the
Infonnallon n.eded to value th. unllquidired torr injUly Claim,.
Th. CoUrt nOle, !hOt both Ihe Oeblor and chI Clalmanlllllre.d dUlin, oral Il',wnenu Iho
on. cauI.llon lrial will not r'SOlve all !h. iSluCf b.lWeen chI Oeblor and lhe CllJmanll. IlIu"
inelullfn, indlvldumJ llabillry, rupture o(implllll" mechanical cawalion, and dilnl\li'emenl would
nOl b. addt....d if only one ClUlllion trial w.r. h.,d. Funher tri.ls will be needed to r..oly.
theae iSlu...
Pendinllrill or other rcsolUlion, any remol'el1 cllims illlnsl rhe Debtor should b. sUbJ,cI
10 th. .'"IDl. panel and sucl1 cloims will be lransferred 10 th. MOL IUd,. for pre.ll'JaJ purpo...
which should nOl b. inconsill.nl witl1 Ih. iUIOmalic 'IIY of chI Banlcr\Iplcy CoUrt cwnnlly In
effect OJ co the claims olainsr che D.btor Dow Cornlnll, All pani., alree Ihll the bo.nkroprcy
Itay applies to .11 cllims involvlnlthe D.btor, ThereriJre, ch.re is .10 n..d eo phYSically cransfer
Ihe records of .lllh. ca.es involvinlth. Debror to this Dislricl II this lime. The CoUrt also notes
thaI many of ehe cues involvinlche Deblor ar. cllrrenCly before Ih. MOL Judie. There is no
n.ed to WlSt. resources o( th. coun system, tho O'btor l1/1d the CI'imanc. wilh the pl1Y'lc31
tr4nlfer of .11 che case recordl involvinlthe D.btor .ilh.r co thil Dislticl or th. MDt transferee
Coun. The CoUrt will r.'y on tl1. judrn,enl of ehe tran,f.r.. judl' to r.quesr from ch. Iran.f.ror
dlsrrlcl clerkl or th. pllllles wha"ver cue nI., and docker sheell h. needs. The Court is also
aW3l. lhal .lremallve resolutions (l( many of the claim~ will occur prior to Che liq',idalion/lrial
phase of lhe D'bror's blllkruplcy whicl1 would obvlllllh. need for pl1ysicallrl1l1sf.r of tl111 call
19
III, I.'. ~~
)11111 U: j.\ ',\.~ H~ H_ 111112
~
1HILLIR. L" .
iii 11.1_
".....
record'IO thll Oi'lrlct (or Ilill. Secllon I $1(b~(5) do., nOl mand.le thai all ton acrlon. mu.n tit
,
tried In dlnricl coUrt, bUI only tho.. which olio nor orherwl.. ""'ed. lIt r. A.H. Roblll1r 7"
F.2d 01 1013, n. 17. The COUrt tl.lrther not" th.t unlllterollll.mlml of claims o,ainn it deblor
WIder F.d.R.Clv.P, 41, or Irl equival'nl by Ilrum'nt and with jUdlchll spprovaJ, IISlns rather
than inter fer" wilh sooll o( Ch'pter II. SUch acrlon, do nOl violllO the aUlom.c1c ,tly. Qa,q
Manllln", pank. N A. v. Cdlotn COQl,. 852 F.Supp. 226, 221 (S,O. N. y, 1994). The MOl.
jUd,e m,y 'nflr such orders consillenl wilh lhis Coun', opinion and order.
Th. Coun's d.clsion thaI Ih. IIrlmallon proc," ,houfd proceed wllboUl physically
tranlferrlnl th. cu. 11111 for OM 'aU'~lion tllll do.. nOl dl...." this Coun of orilinal and
.;(cluslv. juriadlclion ov.r che bankruplcy 3cllon purSUant to 2S U,S.C. ~ I JJ-I(.). Should the
BlnJctI.ipccy Coun nlld more informalion ~or estlm.lion purposes or r.ach lhe liqUidation phlSe,
the Court mil' a,ain consid'r the iuue of one or more cau,allon tria', should any party 10 the
bOnJctl.iPlCY acrion r.quesl lh. Coun to do so.
O.
~~lr~e:'S~~ec:~:;fea~:~n:~ c~~S\~ ~~~~~~a~~~;h:~~a~O~~~;s f ~';
"~e~~::d :~., ~e ;;:;bror's b~;:;~o~;; ~r~::Od~;;i
TIl. Court hIS juri,dictlon under 28 (J S.C, ~ I JJoI(b) to "a/l ciVil proceed/n.s " relat.d
to ca.ses under till. II." "R"lled 10" Jurisdiction includes action, involvin, non.debrors Ihet
could "conc.ivably" have ilII at'(ecI on the O.btor', bankruplcy cu.. Pacor. In' v -H1RiW. 743
F.ld ~84, 994 (Jrd Cir. 1984); Robinson v Michiun Consol. Gu Co rn~. 918 F1d 579, 58j.
584 (6rh Cir. 1990). rn a r.cenl Supreme COU" cue. the Coun addressed chI "rel,l.d to"
..
jurildlclion O(.'che Court:
Conllress did nOl d.lln.at. lhe $Cope 01' 'rel,ll.d ro' jurl,dicrion. but
ir, choic. of words ,ul"'lJ ~ III1l\I of fome breadlh. Th.
~o
, .
",, u'~.
~I)II l~: H F,\.~ ~U ,IU IInl~
.-.,
.'HILLlR. LA'
,_.
I
char I1.v. no rl,hclo .njoy che prore~llon. ,(forded by bankroplcy, "blllkl\lplcy /lllnll dOlt, ROI
bar an ~clion D,aln." tho principal o( ~ debror'corpor~llon. M~iriml er,c. C" v, Unll'~ J,~'tX
B.IIIk. 9'9 F.2d 1194, 120S (3d Clr. (991). The Cl,imanu l'urther OlSen thl! Ih. conrribluion
claim by the Shlloholdm 'galnsl Che D.blor i. th.oreclcal 31 Ihis time. In ~, 1IIRr.4, rhe
COUrt held chll lh, acelon, 'Iainll ch, non.deblor would h.ve no .(fecl on the deblor',
blnJinlPICY esllllO and there fOil i. nOl "r"lled 10" bllllJctuplcy within rho m'lllln, or ,ecIlon
1471(b).' 743 F.2d "99$. The Third Circuit Stll.d:
... Al besc, illJ a mer, pr'~ur'or 10 the porenclllthlrd party ~I.im
(or Indemnlncalion by Pacor ..tinll Manvlll.. V,llhe OUICOme of
rhe Hillin,.Pacor &cIlon would in no wlY bind Mlnvlll" in lhlC II
could nOl det.rmlne lilY righu, liabUlli,.. or course of .ction or lh,
debror. Since Manville is nOI I Plrty 10 ch. Hillins.Pacor Icrlon,
II could nOl b. bound by res JudiCII. or colllllrll IIloppel. (cites
omiIC.d) Even if rhe Hillins.Pa~or di,puclt i. resolved In favor of
Hillins (tl1er.by keepinl open Ih. pOSSIbility of . lhlrd parry
claim), M4I\vllle wOlJld Ifill be able ro r.llel,ll. Iny ilSue, Or adopl
Iny posilion, in re,ponse to . subsequent cllim by Pacor. ThILl,
lhe banJcruplcy IStlCO could nOI bit Iffo~lCd in any woy unlil the
Pacor.Manvi/l. third pany 3Cllon is aCluolly broulhl and cried.
lsI.. II 99'. The Third Circuit W.nl on 10 SlIre rhar WilhoUl 0 jud~m'nc agalnsllhe non.d.blor.
Ih.r. could never be 3 rhird pllt}' ind'mnllicarion claim 3glinsr ~llnville. UI.. Th. Claimanrs
iii"" rhll , sepllall procoedinl under II U,S.C. ~ S02 must b. broulhl before the BlI\Jcruprcy
Co un I( 0 jUdamenl Is renderod a8linscth. Sharehold.rs.
ClaimanlJ ,I,lt lh41 if cho real concem of Ihe Shllteholders iJ Ihe racI rh,l " certain
inSUlQl1Ce policy Or poliCies ." CO.owned by the Deblor and Dow Chemicol. th.n rh.l ilSue
$hould be broUllhl ro the BankroplCY Co un PurSU4IlCIO In the Morter o( Vlcek. Inc. S I F 3d S30
..
I Secclon 1411 i. now 23 U,S,C. f 1334,
22
l~
1l~,t.;,9~ )lUll I~:H F.\X lU H~ "Oll
~
iHELLR~, L ~ II
-
I
($Ih Clr. 199'). The FiNl Circuit In that ~iU' revenod rhe cJi.r:rlcI court and atftrmed tho
banktuplCY court's opprovol o( c.naln "ltlements. I1ncJinll th.1t rho bankroplcy court hod
IJuri.dlcrlon ov.r liability Insurance policies while che d.blor WQJ il co-insur.d with oth.r panlu
The Fifth Circuit not.d thai' bank.ruprcy esl.illC includes 0 debtor', int.roll In liabUlty iNurll1l:e
W\der II V.S.C. "41(.)( I). ll1..1bt.Maller o( Vir'k. , I F.3d 41 533.
In rhe ill$tanl CU" II In I!.l5.QL there will b. no contln,.nl claim by lhe Shar.holders
l1,alnSI the deblor for indemnification until such lime as .1 judamenl II r.ndered and, rJ1en, thl:
non-deblorl wQuld .llll hive to proceed wilh 11II entir.ly separaee proce.dln, in order to oblAin
Indemninc'lion from rJI. Debtor und.r 11 U,S.C. ~ S02. 10inl lonfeasors arc nOllndilf)en"blc
pllnies In rJle fed.r.1 fon.ln1. Lynch v, 10h,ns.Manville Sales COql, 710 F,2d 1194. 1198 (6th elr.
1983). The BanknJptcy fonun plovidu for 0 mechll1ism to resolve the Deblor's lIabUlry for
indemnification Ihould a judlment b. render.d allalnsl the Sharehold.n.
The in,urance issue raised by the Shareholders i. under the Jurisdiction of the BllIIkruplcy
Coun pursUo.ntlO J I U,S.C. ~ '41. SlClion 541 !live, [he BlII\kroptcy Court brolld tJiSC:lelion
over the Debror', inllrest In a liability insurance policy wh.r. the Deblor is a co-inJured wir.h "
non-debtor third-party. fn chI ~ialler of Vitek, S I F jd at 53 3, Given thaI [ht" I1u been no
judlm.nl entered 'Ialnslth. Shareholders, rJI. Shar.holders hove no ~Iaim pendina alalnsc the
.
insurlllct poll..y 31 this timt end th.re lJI. currently no competinl inltrescJ involved for the
Insuranct funds u between r.he Deblol and it.s co.insured.
AJ to lht Shar'holders' ar!lum.nl thaI judicial eC\lnomy would ~'Jl be S41rvltd If rJI. cues
alllinsl them were joined with the cases 3g.inst Iho Debtor, lhe ~ court hA. ,lated chal
"JudiCial economy icsel(does nor juslil'y federal Jurisdiction," ~. 1013 F.2d 01 1)94. This Coun
:J
I ~
"
""H~~ ~1)1I U:U F,\.\ ~u H~ Il~ll
~
I"'.
tlnd. thac Judicial economy Illone does nOI JUICily Ihl. CoUrt mrcl.lnl )uritdlcdon OV., the Don-
banJuuplCY aClloM involvlnl the Shareholders. TII. claim. involvinl the Shareholders u. nOl
r.Jared 10 !h. bankroprcy IClion be (ore the CoUrt. The CoUrt hu no Juri'diclion over tho..
claim. purlUIlllIO 28 U.S.C. f 1334('0).
E.
tylolionl and ProP\lIa~ Ord,rs Q\~'lll"inll !h; ~e~lor ltId/or R.mandlnll
Clalm. involvln, Dow Chemic" and Com.ln . n9
YanoUl Claimllll.S In their re'ponlOllo !h. Oeblor's mOllon to trlllJ(er Illd durin, oral
u,wnen" Indica" thai Ihere &1" mOllons Illd proposed ord." s..kJn, 10 dismJu or I.ver tho
O.blor lJId/or remand the r.lalm. Involvlnl Oow Ch.mlcal and COmln., Inc. currently plrWln,
,
eilher In tho dlllTicl COurt 10 which Oow Chemical :uld Contini. Inc. removed ch. CU'I or b.for.
Ihlt MDL JUdg..' Given &hiJ CoUrt's Nlln. ChOl il hIS no JUlisdiclion ov.r !he clo1rn. invol\'lna
Ih. Sha,reholders, lhose mOlfons a.nd/or orders Co dismISS or lev.r che Oeblor aad/or remllldlnll
Ihe claims ro che SlIle Court should be addr....d by the dislrl~l court in whl~h those claim. :111/
currenlly p.ndlnl or by Iud.. Pointer If the ea.s. hIS been transf.rred 10 the MDL COU".
Funhennore, clllims a.ainst the Shueholders cUlTcncly pendlnl before a Slale Court should ftl)
lonler be removed to the U,S. Diltricl Court If rile only blSiJ ror removal is under 23 U.S,C.
fI334(b).
,
.
"
-
I Th. COUrt nOlls Ihll III July " 199~ Order Provillon,lIy Tr,nsf'rTinl C.nlin 9r,uI
Implanl Casts to lhis Court pendln. a heulnl sp.cifically lIayed aclions Involvin,lh. Debtor.
Dow Comins and did nOl Slay any proc..din.. a.s to Dow Chemical or Comlnl.
24
I I
, .
II~, L-t,~~ 111)11 1$: U '.\.~ lU H~ 1l0l~
1"""1
'H~~LlR. L (, .
-
!II. CO~CLvSrON:
Thi. Coun Ilnds II hu jurisdiction ov~r ollth. OpI',IUI b'~/l.S1 implanr claim. Olalnn eIlo
eeblor Oow Comins PUfSUlllC to 28 U S,C. 1 IJH(a) and this CoUrt does nOl ex.rcl5t ir.s
dllcre/ion to Ib"ain flom W. jurisdiction. The Court 1110 hu the solo authority 10 fix !h. mal
venue (or any personal Injury trials In Ihl, maRer pursUlIl\l 10 28 U.S.C. f IH(b)(.5). For lhe
Pl,IrpoN o( delOrminlnllhe I1lal Venu~ o( th. br'I.SI implanl cue. or l\utherinl the eSllmldon
proce.., lhe Court transfers the claim. _,a ins/ r.he O.blor Oow ComlnllO lh.I. Coun. However,
the CoUrt wlJl nOl rule on the trial venue Issue, al lh.Is lime buc will make !hac decermlDltJon
fOllowin, the clolt of lhe estimacion proceu. Pursuanl co 2S U.S.C. f 1.57(b)('), trial will.ither
be h're. in lhe dislrlcI coun in whicl1 che bankruplCY cue is pcndinl, or the dlmicI court In the
d(Jlricl in which the cl.im arose ill chll Court may dcsilnlle. The Court flnd" no pbyslcAl
crllllsfer o( CUe Illes or case recolds 10 lh. Easl'm Di'lI'icl o( Michilan is necessary a/lhls lime
and no ,ucl1 crwfer .hould be mad. unlil (urther order of this COUrt.
Any removed claims alainstlhe Deblor will b, subjecI to Ih. MOL pan.1 and such claims
will b. trl1l\sf.rred to lhe MDt JudS' for pre.rria' purpo,es on'y (the seninl or the trial venue
havinl been reserved by IhlJ CoUrt) :uld .uch pre.trial proceedin.s shall nOl b. inconSlst.nl with
lhe oUlomalic Stay of lhe BankruplCY Coun whicl1 is currenrly in .(fecI as to (ha claims a.ainsI
the Deblor Cow Comins. AJrhoulh Pan.1 Rule 19(a) requites cl.rlu of thot transferor di.ll;Cl
courtJ 10 forward to the clotrl< of lhe tr:ul,(eree district coun the cllmplete or1linallll. and dockll
sheet for each trans(err~d action, because of lhe 'Ioluminous Illes, the crQl1sferee MOL judle will
d./ermine wh.iever case liles Ql1d docket .heel. I1~ needs rrom the transferor distl'lcc clerk.,
The Bankruplcy Court should proceed wilh It I eSlimllion process r'll1dlnl th.se claim..
H
I I
II~ 1\. U MI)ll l~: U FH H~l~ "~l:
iHILLER. L 4' 1"""1
~IlU
How.v.r, . cau..cion lrial acthi. 'Iall' o( rJ1. proceedinl' Is nOlneceuary. Th. COUll doe. nOI
roreclo.e 11.5 di.crerlon or autholiry to hold such,} crfal or tri.I, II any poinl in the .rtimlllon
proc... (or th. purpose o( funherina or ISsislinllthe process should il be called upon 10 do 10.
Such motionl ,hould be addressed 10 lhJ. CoUrt.
The Coun /lnds it hIS no jutisdictlon over the clllms '1I1lnll the non.d.blol'l Oow
Ch.mlcal Illd Comlnl, Inc. Ind denies lh. O.blor's mOllon co lIMlfer lheu claim,. Claiml
',Iinll the non.deblors shill be r.mlllded to SlIle COwt, if th. only basi. for removal I, lite
Coun', "rel.l.d co" JurI.dlction. The Debtor Dow COminll,hall bt dismissed or may be sever.d
(rom the clalml 'lIlinSl it and olher rron.deblor ddendant5 in ~ccordance with. thil opi.n.lon and
Chlimanl.S .hall be allowed to proceed os scheduled 'lainSlthe non.deblors. Claims a.alnrt the
Oeblor conclnue co be ~lolyed pursuant to the ~utomatlc nay of the Bankruplcy Coun.
Accordlnllly,
IT [S ORDERED lholtlh. COUl'l ha~ jurisdiction over .11 the OPI'OUI bre&Jl impllUlI cl4Jm~
a~ainsl the Deblor Dow Cornina pursuant 10 23 US.C, ~ 1334(1) and is not c)(,rcisinl Its
discretion 10 ab"ain from this juri,diclion,
IT rs FURTHER ORDERED thaI the Court has [he sole aUlhorily 10 the the trill venue
(or any personal injury trials in chis matter pursuillll to 23 (J,S.C. ~ "7(b)(~) and Ihe Court
ORANTS Ih. Debror's mOlion to rrans(er the Opl-Out breaSI Implant cues rOl the purpo..s of
""inl Ih. trial venue of the claims 'aolinSI the Debror or t\mhcrinl the "Iimation process It'
.
necessary. The Coun will d.termin. following the close o( the esrim.tion proce.., wh.ther lh.
trial venuc of the personal injury tort claims, will be ellher in this Caun. lhe dinrtcl coUrt hI
26
~ ,
. ,
t""'\
",..
which lh. banlttuPlCY cue la pendlni, or In th. dllrrlcI COUrt in th. dlllrlcl In which lh, claim
110M pUnllll\110 28 U.S,C. ~ W(b)(');
IT rs FURTHER ORDERED that any removed cllims a,aln~l rh. Deblor will be ,ubj.cI
to th. MOL plllel and .uch claims will be lrana/err.d 10 lhe MDL Judie lor pr/Nrl~' purpo...
only (rh. selllnl of lh. lrial v,nue havlnl b'.n relerved by Ihj, Court) IIld luch prN"al
proceed In,. shall nOl be lnconalSl.nl wirh Ihe aUlomlllc stlY of th. 8anJcn.lprcy Coun wl1ich I,
curr.ntly In .(Iecl .. ro the Claim. 'Iainsl the Deblor Dow Comln,_ AhhoUlh Pan" Rule 19(a)
requlr.. cl.rk.s of chi trwf'ror dfSlrlCI COIll'U 10 (orward 10 the clerk o( th. !rlll.f".. dl,rncI
coUrt the compleee ori,lnal ilIe IIldo docker ,heer (or each transferr.d aCllon, because 01' Ih.
voluminou. filu, the lransferee MOL judse will dll.rmine wharev.r cue nI.. and docker sh.llts
he n"de (rom lhe Ir4ns(eror dlllrict cl.tks;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED rhat no physiclllranl(,r of COl' Ill" or cue r.cordl to the
EUlem DiSlrtCl of Michirlllshould take place 3t rhis lim., nor until funher ord.r of th..is Courl;
[T IS FURTHER ORDERED lh.t the mOlion of lhe Debtor Dow Corn/nllo trQnsr;r the
brlOSl implant c.... for th, purpose of holdinl one causalion trisl prior to the eSlimation process
Is DENIED without prejudice at this time. the Co un reservin, irs authorilY ro hold luch a Irlol
or tria', ro tUnher th. effons of rhe ellimation process:
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED thaI the 8anktuPlCY Coun 'hould procUd wirh III ellimalion
process requlrtd by II U.S.C. f S02(c);
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED lhat the D.blor', mOlion ro rrwfer rhe brelllt lmploll11
,
cr"'ml ollinst' Ih. non-debtors Dow Chemicol and Cornlna, Inc. ro the Ea.sc.m Oillricl o(
Michl,an is h.r.by DENIED:
27
6 ,
, ,
II' l""~ M(l~ l,~: N P,\.X ll~ H~ "lll~
1'"'\
'HELLER, L ,\ B
-
IT IS FURTHER ORDERBO thae moeions and pro pond orders $Iaklnl co di.rnl.t, or
saver the Debtor !'rom claims a,aWl other brca'l implMI defrndanl$ pendini in either .101e
coUrt. or in federeJ disllict courtS should be GRANTED and 31\ order ,houJd be enter.d by rho..
rllpecli ve coUrtS I.n I1Ccoldance with thil opinion and order;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED thaI rJ1e claim. alainlt the non-deblors Oow Chemical and
COmlnl, Inc. which hllve be.n rrmov.d to rederal dlsllict coul'tJ shall be REMANDED 10 the
,
I
respective StAlC coUlt4 if tha only blSl. for removal i. 23 V.S,C. U I J34(b) or 1367(a);
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED thai rJ1e claims allalnsr the Oebtor Oow Corulnl conti.oue
to be stAyed pursuant to the aUlomlli~ Slay of th. BllIl<roptcy Coun unlit lUrther order of the
Bankruplcy COurl;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED lhal the lime for removal of the Opl-OUI breL!1 implll.lll
claims pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 9027(.)(~)(A) aglJnslthe Debtor Dow CominS b. enlulled
to 30 days from the dlle of lh!s Ord.r or the Oebcor Dow Cominl may remove the claims 30
days after entry of on order lcrrnin~tini thot llay pUlSuanl co Bankruptcy Rule 9027(a)(2)(B);
IT [5 FURTHER ORDERED thaI the MOL Judg. may .nter order! 10 r.m3.nd, to dismiss
,~
and to sever any clalm. l1iaJnsl non-deblolS. includlnllhe Sharehold.n, In accordance with this
. Opinion and Order.
.'
,
PAGE HOO
Stales DIStrict JudlC
DATED: ..J.E.e.1..2J9.
2$
l ~
, '
,
,.
Il~" U' ~~ )\l;I/'i IS: H '.\.~ llS H_ 1l8l2
'HELLi:H. L 4 .
--.
,-
UNITED STATES DISTRlCT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT Of ~nCHJCAN
SOUTHERt~ DrvlSION
'=
",'
;r.,.l
l,liT
~...,..
.' .
"'''., ..
-, .
c'
'"
~. , 'Of
;";:1:
r:
t....
'-
.t:.
....
'"'
;t
t~
-
"".
In RIl
DOW CORNING CORPORATION,
CII.. No. ?5.CY.71J97.DT
D,blor.
HON. DENISE PAGE HOOD
I
MJMORANPUM OPINJPN AND OflDER
Q~ TIlE SON.DEBTORS' MQTIONS TO TRANSFER
l. (~TRODL'CTION/F.'\CTS:
Thl. miner is before ch. Courr on the non.deblors Medical EnllnUMIJ
I
Cllrpor'liorv'Brillol.Myers Squibb ("~[EC Defendanrs"), MiMesol1l Minina a.nd Monufocrurinll
Company ("3M") and BI;(ler Heallh~Gle Corp. and Baxler lnremalional, Inc.'s ("Bo.xter
Otrenda.nIS") mOllon. 10 trllnsfer brust implMt ClUes to che Unired SillIes DiSlrl~1 Court, Eutcm
Districl ot' Michisan. Responses were tiled and II holGllna was held on the malter.
On May lS. 1995, the Deblor. Oow Corn.iJlg Corporation, :lOUahl a volUllllry petition for
reorlanlZ4clon under Chapter II ot'th. Bankruplcy Code with lhe Bll'Ik.NplCY COUll o( the UlUlcd
SIIII, Oistricl Court, EUlCm DiSlricl o( Michilan, ~orthem Division in Bay eil}', bll(orc rhn
Honorabl. A.rt.hur 1. Spector, On lune 11.. 1995, th. O.blor tiled II motion to lrilllsfer certain
brllQst Implanl cues beiore Ihe Bankrllptcy Courr. JudS' Speclor .ntered a Delenni",ulon and
Report ilIld Recommendlltlon R'iGldinl the Deblor's MOlioll 10 Tr:lll,!'er on lune I J. 199~
indlcalin; lhQ,1 rJ1. DlScrlcl Court had jurisdiction over this mOlion. Thol non.d.blors. MEC
Ollfolndonl:&. 3M. 3IId Ba;(ter Derendanl, also tlleo similar mOlions to transt'.r bllfor. the
I l
!;
, .
~
fA\
BankruplCY CoUrt. On July $, 199', thl. Court .nl.r.d III ordor provilionally transt.mnllth.
opl.OU( br'lIJ( Implanl ~W1OS Involvinl Ihe Oeblor only 10 lh. Eoulem DI'ltlcl of l'vIlchJlan
p.ndlnlla hurtnl.chcdul.d for the molion on July 31, 199'. Th. Court alJf scheduhld UII! n\)O'
d.blon' mOlion. to Clan,fer on the same dale.
Plainliff's have /lI.d various caulCS of aClion. ~1I over the United Sllre, alaln.t the non.
deblors and mOVIlll.S, MEC DefendanlS, 3M IU\d BII.~ter Defendancs. all'llnl, I.o.lu W, thaI 1M
lillcone brut! ImplllllS manufllClured by lhese companies, caused cert.ln di...... IIId inJuri...
Th. non.d.blor Defend.nls have also been .ued, in 'orne cues, II joint tortiellon with the
Debtor, namiflK the D.blor I).S th. suppl{er of certoln raw maler/a Is, Thory seek 10 have the oclionl
alo.ln.1( them transt'err.d to Ihis Olsrrict 3lon~ with the actionl InvolvlOlthe Debtor, ess.nllll.1ly
so Ihlt tho Court CIU\ hold ~n. or more consolidaled trial. on the Issue of causQrlon only.
II. ANAL YSIS:
(
A.
\Vhelher the c1o.ims Involvinl the non.dcplllrs llIe "relal.d to" t~e Debtor's
blU\kruDlCV orllCffdlnllS wtder 18 U.S.C, S IJ ]4fb),
The dinrict COUlt has Jurisdiction und.r 28 US,C. ~ 13H(b) 10 "0.11 ciVil proceedinll' ...
relo.red to cases wtder rille II." "Related ro" jutlsdictlon Includes aClions Involvlnl non.debtors
.1
Ihll could "conceivably" have an affect on the Oeblor'$ ban.lu\lptcy case. Plcor. Inc. v, Hill,ins.
74] F.ld 984. 994 (]rd Cir, (984); Robinson v. Michillan Cansol. a.., Co, lnc.. 91S F.2d $79,
'S3.'34 (6th Clr. (990), (n. recent Supr.mor Court case, the COUI1 addressed rhe "relared co"
Jurisdiction o( the Coun:
Conlr.1S did not delineo.le lhe scope of 'related to' jUrisdicrion, bUl
ill choice o( words sunens a ~rllJlt of some brelAdth. The
Jurisdictional iNnl In f 1334(b) was II dlsrlncl depllrt\lre (rom lhe
Jurisdiction conferred under prevloul OCIS, which had been Iimlred
to ellher posslUlon of property by the debtor or consenl .u a basIS
2
~ ~
)11;111 l~: H n.~ ll~ H~ 1190
iHILLIR. I" 4 .
,.......,
,.-'
c
(or }url.dlcclo". W. IIlree with the vi.w. e~prelled by th. COUl1
of App..l. (or th" Third Clr~uic In Pacor. ln~, v H.iu.l.DJ, 7013 F,2d
914 (19'4). lhll 'Conlrlll Inlendcd II) ,Ianl compr.hen.lvl
jllll.dlcllon 10 the blll\ll(uprcy Courts so chll they m1llhl dllnl
.(Oclenlly and ellpedlclol/sly with all miners COM.cted with the
blllktuplCY a.lale: and thai the '"Iared 10' lanl\lale o( ~ 13)~(b)
mUll be read 10 live di.rricl COunJ (and banktuplCY COUrtl WIder
f I $7(a)) Jurisdicdon over more then slmpl. proceedlnls Involvlnl
the prop.rty of the d.blor or the e.lale.
In r, C.lotlK ~ol1l., 11$ S.Ct. 1493, 1498.'499 (199$).
In fw.t, _ Ihe Coun held that Ih" ,clion. 'lainS! th. non.d.blor 1Y0uld have no
eff.ct on the deblor'. bank:uplCy ISIare and charet'ore ue nOl "relat.d 10" bo.nkruptcy wirhln rJ1.
m....nlnl of secdon 1471(b).1 143 F,2d 31 995. Th. Tluld Circuil slllted:
... At bell, il is a mere pre~\lrsor to Ihe porendallhird party claim
for Indemnll1catlon by Pocor Ilainsl Monvllle. Verlh. QIIICOrne of
the Hillllins.Pocor action would in no wlY bind Manville. in thac it
could nOl d.t.rmin" any rllhts. Iiabillti.s. 01 cow.. o( aCllon of the
deblor. Since Mo.nville is not a Pitt)' 10 the Hflllins.Pocor Iction,
II could not be bound by ru )udlcall or collareral csloppel. (cilt.
omlrted) Even If the Hillsins.Pocor dlspuI. Is resolved In favor of
, . Hlllllna (ther.by keepina open the pO~Slbility of I third pll'ly
claim), Manville would slill ba Ible to r.litillt. Iny luut, or ado pI
any posicion, in rupon.. 10 I subsequenl claim by Pacor. Thus.
th. bonkruplCY Utllle could nOl be al'fecl.d In any wey WIlli th.
Pacor.ManvHle third party action Is acruoJly broullhl and (fied.
ld. ,,99'. The Third Circuit wenl on to 'tile thlC without I Judllm.nl laa.inSl rh. nono.Jeblor.
th.ra ~ould. n.ver b. . third party IndemnJflcalion claim alllnse Monville. UI.. The Si;(th Circuit
also nOled IMt 4.lly judlm"nt received could not itself r.sult in even II CO~llinlenl claim Illolns!
the deblor since an enlirely separate proceedin~ to obtain Indemnillcalion muse tlue be made,
I Section 1471 IS now 28 U SC, ~ IJH.
3
6 6
'lHILLU, L 4 .
"'l~' U )Ifill U: U f.\.~ 1U H~ IIell
t"'\
,....
,
,
"rh", i. nQ automaliclconlrac\\Ial blSls for Indemnlncetlon berwe.n Ih, non-Ileblor M'" th.
(
debtor. lit.
In the IllIlanl CIU4I, .. In ~ thare would b, no continlent claim by th, non.deblofl
alalnat th. Oebtor for lnd.mnillcolion unlil sucll time.. 0 judlmentl, rendered. Even th.n, Ihe
non-debtors would lIavel to proceed with on .ntirely sopata" proceadlnl In urder 10 OblAh\
Ind.mnlflcalion from tht Oeblor before llle BanJuuplcy Court. Ther. hili b"n no 11I'1:lllon that
there I. I conlracNal or automatic blSis for Indemnincalion b.rwean lht non-d.blora Md tht
Deblor. Nor h.. lhere been II/IY ....rtion that the non-debtors hl1ve med III\Y crou-cla.irn. laaINt
the O,blor. Ev.n if ero.a.cIIIRls \Vcr. med by the non.deblors alalnsttht D.blor, those chums
could be severed and the maller ~ould proceed 3.S to lhc non-dcbtors.
Th. non.debtors have asserted lhor judiclel economy should be a conll'm Cor the Con".
I
The ~ court addressini jlldiclal economy wroce:
(
On the oth.r hand, th. mer. fac" chatchere may be common
IssuOl Qf t'acc belW"n a civil proceedlni and a conlrovcrlY
Involvina the bankruplCY "lale dOli not brirllthc man.r wllhln the
.cope of section 147i(b). Judicial econoRlY Itself dOli not justify
ceder.l jurisdiction. (CIlOl omiRed) '(llurlsdlcrlon ovar
nonbankluplcy controvers!" with chlrd plll'tits who are olherwise
sClonlcrs to the civil proceedlni and to che pat.nt bQl1kruPlCY doc.
not 0;(111.' (clces omicted).
~, 743 f.2d At 994. This Court nnds thac judicial economy would nOl be actained Ill" having
one or more causation trial on the issull o( discue Involvlnlthe non-deblors becluse thert app".v
10 bt other lsaues involved lhac ne.d to be tried subsequenlco th. CQllSllion Irlal, I.e" mechanicnl
caus&lion ond puniclve dam.gu. t'his Court further finds chat judici~1 cC\lnomy Rlone dOllS not
Juslify INS Court obwnilll jurisdlclion ow the non.blU\Ja'Uplcy actions involvlnl the non-
4
l l
~
I"'-
c1ebloU. The claim. 'IAill,1 the non.deblon Ole nOl relared 10 th. bankruptcy accion bolo" cho
Coun and lho CoUrt ha, no jurisdiction Qv.r cho.e claims purSU8I11 ,,, 28 U.S.C. ~ I 334(b).
8, ~elhltr the Co~~ p~5S-'~les suppl.menrDJ luti.diction ~~d.,
28 V.S.C. ~ 1367(a).
(
The non.c1.blorl clre In re Cuvlhon Egull'. C911J., 9.0 F.2d \10 (2d Cir, 1992) 10 >>upporl
chelr ar,umenl thac Ihi. Coun POlS..,... supplemental jllri.dicuon over lho actions a,aJnll ch.
non.deblon punuanl to 28 V.S.C. ~ 1367(.). In thac cue, Ihe coun ataced:
The dlstriCl cOUrt'. auchority to approve the seRlem.nl, wilh
respecl 10 Iho envlronmencal CAusa. of :Iclion, could properly be
(ounded on Its suppl.menlol jurildicclon. Oiven II.n Ind.pendenl
j\lri~iclion source like lhal provided by ~ I J34(b), federal cOUtU
posse. supplemental jurisdiccion onr retared claims. See 23
U.S.C.A. f I J67(a) (WOSI Supp. 1992) ("(Tlh. diStricl coUtU shall
have luppl.menlal juri.diclion over 011 ocher claims thai are all
rell1led c9 claiml In ranI action within (a coUrt's) ollllnal
jurl.dlction thaI th.y (orm pan of che some cas.,") In che case al
hil.nd. th. envlronmenlal cau... fonn pan of the Silln. ca.. wilh the
bankruplcy claim:! because all of them, resolved in ch. SlRlemenl
4~r..menl. concem Ihe lovemmenr's aRempl' co remedy hozllldous
sub.l4nce rele..es atlh. Publicker Sile and th.y remain inlel1Wlned
In the comp.tins parties' effortJ 10 secUle II. .har. of the proceeds
o( the oplion sale. Even WithOUl an Ind.pend.nl source o(
Jurisdiction over the environm.nlai actions. f 1367(.) therefore
v,sled tho Southem Dlstricl with junsdicllon over th.m as "Iarcd
claims formlnl part of the same clISe pendlnl before Ie. (cites
omIRed)(emphuls added).
I
lll. il II'. The Court notes that chis appcOls co be che only circuit cue wl\lch .ddr.....
S\lpplemenlll Ju.risdictlon under Seccion 1367 involvinl 0 bUl.llzt1plcy. In chI! Maller 01' WlSlker.
, 1 F.2d j62, H2 (jth elr. 1995). The Fil'ch Clrcuil noltd chal the Second Circuit "did nOI test
on ~ 1367 alone. nOlin. chac '(tlhe di'lrlCI did not need to rely solely on III S\lpplemenlal
jurlsdlclion to QPprovlI th. selll.mcnl. because QddiuonL\1 auchortcy 011111 !'rom CERCt,",' s
5
. .
" 118.U'~~ lll.lll 1':18 '.\.~ H~ Hd nllll
'HILLER. L. ~ .
-
",".
jUlI.dlction&! IUtll. ...'" (Ciltl omIRed). $1 F.2d ~I $72, n, 8. Section IJ67 ilJ.o u....th. "r.llted
(
10" INI,UI.I in order (or a court to e;(lrcl" jurlsdlclilln over lI/I Iccion.
Olvln Ihe fllCII In l1\e InllNlI CISC, chi. CQUrl nnds rJ11l1 II do.. not hive .upplcm.nlllJ
jUll,dlcllon over che cllims ~llin'll1\e non-debtor,. The brelSl Implanl ocllollt all.lnll che non-
deblora lie nOl ".0 rllwlld" 10 the bankruptcy aclion thll "l1\e~ (onn put of lhe .a.ml CUI." III
chi I" re Cuyah9" cue, the S.cond Circuit fOllnd lh"lthe en'lirorunenl&! callie 1 (omled put of
chi banlcruplCY clllm, becluse lhou claim. remained "Inll~ned in the compellnll putl..'
.I<<on. 10 ..cure a shlle of the proceeds o( the opcion sal.," 910 F.2d al tIS. Hlrl, th. non-
deblon have nol shown that the claims Isalnll them ore so "inlertWined" whh the O.blor'~
IntereslS in the bfJlkruplcy action. The Coun nnds thAI il has no suppl.menlal Jurlsdlcllon over
lhl claim. Involvlnllhe non-deblon thll do nOl involve Ihe Deblor.
Since this Coun has ruled thll il does not hove jUllsdlclion over the claim. ol&lnll l1\e
non-debtorl, che Court will nOl address the abstention issue In d.IIi1. The Coun incorporales by
reference Irs Malysl. of lhe ~bsl.ntion issue In ilS Memorandum Opinion and Ord.r on the
Deblor's MOlion 10 Tr..n.ler,
C, MOlioos and Proooscd Orders DismiJlll'll lhe Oeblor lind/or RelJ}.II}!lJlIJ
Cll1ims involvlnR the Non.O,btors CurrentlY Pendin..
Vlllou. CI..imcants in rJ1.ir responses 10 the non-d.blors' mOllons 10 frlll.f.r and dutil'll!
oral OIauments Indlc.II lhal there 01. mollonl and proposed orders ..eklna 10 dismi.. or sever
lh, Deblor candlor remand the clo1ims involvln~ l1\e non.debtors currenlly pendlna either in lhe
dlllricI court 10 which lh. non-deblOrs removed the man.r or be(or. rhe Multi DIIlricl t..ili,alion
6
. ,
~HILL..U. L ill ~
"'"""
~-
I
-
,
(",'. ~'
IT IS FURllfER ORDERED lhll che non.d.blolf lie BN10lNEP !'rom r.mov\n. IlIIY
claIm. ",ainll alllhe non.doblorr cUITenlly pondlna before G Irolt coun 10 lh, United Srll"
Dlllricl Cou.rc it tho only basi. for removal is under 28 U.~.C. f 1334(b) or f 1367(1),
DATED: .lE.e..1l.1995
PAOE HOOD
1111' DIIlricr1udae
"
,
,
"I
"Ill
,I
I,
, '
Ii "
, ,
"
J' 'I
, ,
,
,
",1'
. ;I.
",j
, I'
"
"
"
I I 'J
, ,
,"
';1 F
, ,
'"
1'1
, I
.. , I
,il
.
,'1'
"I I
I
,
,
"
,
I*'
At Ule Court It aware, the United SIIIeI CQUrt of Appeal. for tho Sixth Clreult
hu befoR It appeal. filed by 3M and other manuf~turer., pursuant to which the Sixth
Clreult will cIel.ermlne whether the United SlIlCI Olatrict Court for the Eutem DI.trlct of
MlclUpn (the "Bankruptcy Dlllrict Court") hu jurildlcUon over thoae and other breut
lmplantlCllon. under 2' U,S.C. 111334 and 14'2, and whether theae ~tlona Ibould be
llInafmed to that court pllnuantto 28 U.S.C. I 157(b)(S). Oral araument on the appeaIa
wu heard on March " 1996, and the parties expect a rulin, In the near future. If tho Sixth
Clrewt rulea that the Bankruptcy District Court haa jurisdiction over thele ~tlona, thele
ICtlon. will remain In federal court, It would be extremely uneconomical and lnemclent for
these ~tion. ll) be firat reml,llded to sllte court, just to be re-transferred back ll) federal
court. Accordln,ly, 3M reapectfully requests that the Court defer consideration of the
plalnti<<s' motion until such time II the Sixth Cireult resolves the jurlsdlctlonall..uea railed
In the appeala before il.
In addition, plaintiffs' motion should be denied because they have failed to
comply with thla Court'. SlIte Remand Order No. I, which requires that plalnti<<. ..reo ll)
dl,ml.. their claim. apInst Dow Comln, llIId related compllllle. with prejudice, Here,
plalntl<<. only seek to lever Dow Comln.. Severini Dow Comln., however, will only lerve
ll) c....te duplicative llIId multiple llti,atlons. Plaintiff. would have to p111'eue their claim.
apInll all manufacturers other thllll Dow Comln, in one court, and separately pursue Dow
2
.\'n....,,\~_...
,....._'\
,-
Conlin, In blnJuuJ*lY COIIrt, bued 011 mentlaJly the 11III. lei o( aJlepIlon., Aa:ordlnaly,
no benefit I. ..rved by ..y.rln, the c:leJm. apJnlt Dow Comln, (rom thl. Il:tIon,
I
It I. 3M'. undel'ltandln, that the Court'a procedure o( remandln, C&IeIln
which pIaIntl<<. ...... to dlaml.. their claim. .,aln.t Dow Comln, and related c:omJllllI..
wu Intended 10 provide (or dlamlllll. only where Dow Com In, wu .ued u a .uppller o(
Ill1cone pi material. and not where Cow Comln, wu one o( the manufacturer. o( the
pIaIntiffa' Implanll. Plaintiff. here have failed 10 Identify In their motion the manufll:turer.
o( their rapective Implant., leavln, open the possibility that Dow Comln, wu the
manuflCtuIW of one or more ..ta of their Implants. To the .xtent any of theae plalntiffa
have multipl. Implanll, the determination of which Implant (If any) caused plalntlffa' llleaed
Injuria, and the apportionment of any fault amon, the defendants, should not occur without
the preaenc:e of III manufacturers, This will be difficult to IC(Ompllsh If Dow Comln, I.
"vered from theae actions.
In Iddltlon, and contrary to the requirements of State Remand Order No. I,
theae plaintiff. have not Indicated whether they were partlclpantsln the Ori,lnal \1lobal
Settlement, or whether they have opted out of the Revised Settlement Pro,ram. Both the
Ori,lnaI OIoba1 Settlement and the Revised Settlement Pro,ram expresaly prohibit ..ttlln,
plalntiffa (rom further proaecutln, their breut Implantll:llona lpin.t 3M and other ..ttlln,
de(endanllln sllte or (ederal court unless and until they opt out of the clw settlement,
ConlllCluently, to the extent these plaintiff. are partlclpent. In the clau settlement, they are
3
""'1",,"11\__..
.
"I>...
,
r--.
Rachel B. nisner, Esq.
Dechert Price &. Rhoads
4000 Bell Atlantic Tower
1717 Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103.2793
l'
,
III
ll,
h.' \,1"
r~,h t J
~, I ~ n,l,i
i
hI I, Ir,I]1
"1
,1;1',
'J
"
),'1 1\1 J l
~ I !I'~ ,C I
"
l.<
I'"
"
"
",
"
"
I'
,I
"
"
, ~ I
"
,
" ,
i
NV'&IO", i\1"'61l9\000l11l711lJlTOl16L,1JP
,!,
"
I"
~
,-,
t1NIT2D STAT2S DISTRICT COURT
NORTH2RN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA - SOUTH2RN
", !! .: I~I
DIVIBIO~,; {~K I,:; 9'~,
IN REI SILICON2-GEL BREAST
IMPLANT PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION (MDL 926)
lJ.$, f); .,.' I .YI,l
MaBter File No. 1'111 I), {,i..',:/.i'il\
C\l-~Ii P 13884-S
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA - SOUTHERN DIVISION
CYNTHIA H. MCGEE and
KEN MCGEE,
Plaint if fs,
No. 96-P-10644-S
v.
DOW CORNING WRIGHT CORPORATION,
DOW CORNING CORPORATION, MENTOR
CORPORATION, SURGITEK/MEC
SUBSIDIARY CORPORATION, BRISTOL-
MYERS SQUIBB CORPORATION, and
HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL,
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
Defendants.
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
RESPONSE OF HEALTH CARE PROVIDER DEFENDANTS
TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SEVERANCE AND REMANQ
In the above referenc~ case and those caBes referenced in
Exhibit "A", attached, defendant healthcare providers hereby ,
reBpond to plaintiffs' motion for severance and remand.
1. Admitted upon information and belief.
2. Admitted.
3. Admitted.
4. Admitted.
5 . Admi tted.
6. It is only admitted that the debtor'S bankruptcy filing
1
5
"
~
,......
provided a basis for removal.
7. Admitted,
8. Denied as stated. It is only admitted that on September
12, 1995, the Honorable Denise Page Hood, United States Distriot
Court of the Eastern District of Michigan, entered a Memorandum
Opinion /ilnd Order on the debtor's, Dow Corning's Motion to
Transfer and a Memorandum Opinion and Order on the non-debtor
manufacturers' Motion to Transfer.
It is specifically denied that Judge Hood ordered that
motions seeking to sever the Debtor and/or remand the claims
involving non-debtors be granted. To the contrary, Judge Hood's
order statesl
. . . IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that motions and
proposed orders seeking to dismiss or sever
the Debtor and/or remand the claims involving
the non-debtors back to state court currently
pending either in the district court to whioh
the non-debtors removed the matter or before
the MDL judge, should be aranted by that Court
in accordance with this Court's opinion/...
In Ret Dow Cornina Corp. Memorandum Opinion and Order on the
Nondebtore' Motion to Transfer (September 12, 1995) (emphallis
added). Specifically, Judge Hood states that motions to sever
and remand "should be granted in accordance with this Court's
opinion. " Judge Hood's opinion and order, however, does not
address the status of crossclaims of the non-debtor co-defendant
healthcare providers, which are present in the cases which are
subject to plaintiffs' motion.
Further, on April 9, 1996, the United States Court of
2
. ,
~
I""'-
Appeals for the Sixth Ci~cuit reversed Judge Hood's holding that
she nad no subjeot matter jurisdiction over the breast implant
claims pending against the non-debtor defendants. The appoals
court also reversed the Diijtrict Court's holding that it did not
have the power to transfer those claims. In Re I Dow Corninq
L~nq88Y, et al v. O'Brien. Tanok. Tanzer & Younq. et al., 1996
0.6. App. ~exis 6885; 1996 FED App. 0118P (6th cir.) The matter
is now remanded back to Judge Hood for proceedings on the issue
of abstention. Presently, Judge Hood is therefore, presumably
reconsidering certain jurisdictional issues ill light of the Sixth
Circuit's opinion. Judge Hood's suggestion that the district
court or "the MDL judge" sever or remand the claims involving
non-debtors is, therefore, contained in an opinion which has been
reversed on issues of jurisdiction which are at issue in the
instant motion. At this point, therefore, plaintiffs' reliance
on that Eastern District of Michigan holding is improper, now
that the Sixth Circuit has reversed it. The instant cases should
remain in federal court, especially pending the jurisdictional
issues currently under consideration by the Eastern District of
Michigan.
Additionally, in arriving at the reoent holding referenced
above, the Sixth Circuit addressed the issue of crossclaims. In
doing so, the court concluded that claims against non-debtor co-
defendants are "related to" the bankruptoy, in large part because
the non-debtors would likely be asserting contribution and/or
indemnification claims against the debtor Dow Corning. In tho
3
. ,
~
1"
oourse of the opinion, the Appeals Court aoknowledged the
presenoe of crossclaimsl
Thousands of suits asserted against Dow
Corning include claims against the nondebtors,
and where those parties have been sued, they
have asserted claims for indemnification and
contribution against Dow Corning. We believe
the nature of the claims asserted establishes
that Dow Corning and the various nondebtor
defendants are closely related with regard to
the pending breast implant litigation...
In addition, we do not believe the possibility
of oontribution or indemnification liability
is, at this point in time, too speculative Or
too remote to s\~stain "related to"
jurisdiction over the claims at issue...
The potential for Dow Corning's being held
jointly and severally liable with the non-
debtors, or vice versa, suffices to establish
a conceivable impact on the estate in
bankruptcy. Claims for indemnification,
whether asserted against 01' by Dow Corning,
are virtually certain to affect the size of
the estate and the length of time the
bankruptoy proceedings will be pending, as
well as Dow Corning'S ability to resolve its
liabilities and proceed with reorganization.
~[A at p. 12 and 13. The Sixth Circuit, therefore, reoognized
that the nondebtors' crossclaims will have an impaot on the
breast implant litigation.
The motion at bar has been properly filed in the Northern
District of Alabama. Referring to this Court's previous remand
orders for guidance is, therefore, appropriate. In State Remand
Order No.1, this Honorable Court identified certain findings
before cases were remanded to state court. Included in the
prerequisites was the absenoe of any pending crossclaims against
Dow defendants. Accordingly, this court speoifioally refrained
4
'I
. .
~
I"'"
from remanding cases "in view of pel\ding cross-claims against one
or more Dow defendants by other defendants." (State Remand Order
No. 1 - Final) Moreover, in anticipation of forthcoming motions
to sever and remand, the order set forth considerations and
requirements for future motions I
The court expects a large number of similar
motions to be made in the future with respect
to cases removed under 28 U.S.C. 51452(a) and
then transferred to this court under 28 U.S.C.
S1407. The following procedureo should be
followed in such cases where the plaintiff(s)
will seek remand based on a dismissal with
prejudice of the Dow defendants. . .
(2) The motion should clearly... (b)
iDd~aat. wh.th.r the olaintiff h.. opt.d-out
of the ..~tl.m.nt ala.. or i. a mamh.r 0' the
..ttla..nt al.... (0) indiaat. wh.th.r th.r.
ara any aro..-alaims oandinq aaainst anv Dow
d.t.ndant. . .
In the matter at bar, plaintiffs have not indicated whe~h$r or
not they are members of the settlement class, nor have they
indicated whether or not there are any crossclaims pending
against any Dow defendant. Since the Pennsylvania healthoare
p~ovider defendants have in fact, asserted crosscl~ims against
Dow Corning, the precursor that there be no crossclaims again,t
the Dow defendants has not been met. Given the Sixth Circuit's
opinion, along with this Cour.t's previous orders and instruction,
these cases should not proceed in any fashion until, the status
of healthcare provider crossclaims is acknowledged and addressed.
9. Denied as stated. It is only admitted that, in the past
JUdge Sandra Mazer-Moss has indicated a willingness to consider
5
, ,
~
I"....'
December 1996 trial dates for cases ~ither 1.) agreed upon by all
parties, or ~.) determined ~fter petition by plaintiffs to the
court and a response by defendants. There has been no formal
indication by the Three Judge ~anel that any cases shall be set
for trial in 1996. Moreover, the Pennsylvania poordinating Court
Three Judge ~anel does not currently have jurisdiction of the
eaees at issue in plaintiffo' motion.
10-11. Denied, Severance without addressing or providing
for the healtheare provider erossclaims against the debtor is not
appropriate. The healtheare provider defendants will be
prejudiced unless their croDsolaims are IIpecifj,cally provided
for. Moreover, plaintiffs have not Gomplied with the
requirements set forth by this Court in State Remand Order No.1.
1~. Denied. It ill a legal conclusion as to whether
plaintiffs "cannot" dismiss Dow Corning with prejudice. Further,
regardless of whether Dow Corning should be dismissed, the Dow
defendants have not been dismissed. Thus a requirement for
remand has not been met.
13. Denied as stated. Plaintiffs' Short Form Complaints
speak for themselves as to whether a conspiracy theory is
alleged.
, ,
, ,
"
"
6
IllhIIlIt A
~
(i)~
..j 1l0l1'!I'I" .~ III HI'o II'" ~l','.., I':
"
"
"
"
'I.t,
1,1
,',
"
,
,
"
dl
:'
"
"
"
'"
"
"
,
,
"
",
,
"
"
\';1
"
'"
"
,
I'
..
I'
,""""I
APR-~-Hj9b 14131 FROM ,rt::IMI1$,T~2.H>tFER
.-
TO
916108341749 P.02
UNITID STAT!S DISTRICT COURT
N'OJl.11I11U'l DISTalCT or ALAiAMA . SOUTHIl~ DIVISION
IN ~I SILICONE-amI. B~T
IM'~ 'RODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION (MOL '25)
Ma.ter rile No.
CV.9S.P-1300".S
-
UNITBD STATES DISTRICT COURT
NOR11I1l1U'l DISTRICT or ALABAMA . SOUTH!~ DIVISION
S~LY HOFFMAN and t.ANNY
HorFMAN, hu.band and wife,
plaintiff.
v.
DOW CORNING WRIGHT CORPO~TION
DOW CORNING CORPORATION,
JOHN c. SHANTZ, M.D.,
~ISBUJl.G HOSPITAL, and
STEPHlN J. HERCIG, M.D.
Defendan".
NO. '6.P.l0651.'
TIOIIU, 'l'IlOIIA' . u.rl.
By /7f L h"f4l6L -
~ E.quire
sarah W. Aro.ell, I.quire
30S North Front Street
P.O. lox 999
Harri.b~rg, PA 17108
(117) 255.7637
Datil """H
Attorney. for Defendant.,
Stephen J. Herceg M.D. and
Harding, Herceg' Leber Aa.oeiate.
04-2S-96 04:J7PM
I
"'"" \
,..
UNITII) ITAT.' DIITJICT COUaT
KOITHIIUf D%lTMXC'1' or AUIAMA
10UTH.aN DIVIIXON
'ALLY HO'PIWf .net WHY
HO'rHAN, bu.banet an4 wite
pldnt1tt.
NO. ..-'-10.81-8
v,
I
I
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HAXl%'IURG HOIP%TAL, et a1.
Defendant.
ae.peotfu11y ,ubaitted,
IYI
An.' ,
Kano X. Ii ,.1
Mio~ .1 L. ~le ani I.qui~e
1.00 One Lib.rty , 10.
Philadelphia, 'A 1.103
215-'64-'1000
Atto~ney tor Defendant,
Har~1.bu~9 Ho.pital
, Datal
2011t1AA.,,'.
~
,...
UNIT~D STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTllilRN DISTRIC'l' OF ALABAMA .. SOUTHERN DIVISION
IN REI SILICONE-GEL BREAST
IMP~T PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION (MDL 9~6)
Master File No.
CV- 95.. P-13004-S
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTIIERN DISTRICT OF' ALABAMA .. SOUTHERN DIVISION
CYNTHIA II. MCGEE and
K\llN MCGEE,
Plaintiffs,
No. 96-P-10644-S
v.
DOW CORNING WR IGII'l' CORPORAT ION,
DOW CORNING CORI>ORM'ION, MENTOR
CORPORATION, BURGITEK/M~C
.SUBSIDIARY CORPORA'I'ION, BRrS'l'OL-
M'IlolRS SQUI BB CORPORA'l' ION, and
HOLY SPIRl'r 1I0SPI'I'Al"
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
Defendllnt;IiI,
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
~IFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Dorothy ouf fy, Esquire, do hereby certify that I oaused a
CJOPy of the foregoing Response of Heal thcare Provider Defendants
to Plaintiffs' Motion for Severance and Remand, to be served this
day by United States firot class mail, postage prepaidl
Hlt~onal Liaison Co-Counsel for Plaintiffs I
Francis H. lIare, Jr., Esquire
1lAa1, WYHIf, NIWILL . NIW'l'ON
suite 800, Massey Building
~90 North ~lDt Street
Birmingham, AL 35~03
J. Michael Rediker, Esquire
alTCHII . .IDII..
)1~ North 23rd Stroet
Birmingham, AL 35203
I,
"
"I'ands McGovern, Special Master
l1niveulty of Alabama Sohool of Law
101 Paul Bryant Drive
P.O. Box 11703A~
Tl!8Calooea, AI, 35481
,
t -.'lINt
~-
.'ranois Ill. Marshall, Jr., Esquire
MAI.HALL . 'AI.ILL, p.a,
t3~J North Front Street
Huri.burg, PA 17102
L.uren A. Stevens, Esquire
Madeline M. Sherry, Esquire
HIC.I., I.OWN, .HI..Y AND JOHN, ON
1700 Two I,ogan Square
18th and Arch Streets
Philadelphia, PA 19103-~769
Gilda Kramer, Esquire
OJ:LDA L. KIANI.
1500 Walnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Marta Sierra Epperson, Esquire
I,inda porr Sweeney, Esquire
OIlMAN, QALLAOHIR . MURTAOH
The Bellevue
200 South Broad Street
Suite 500
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Robert L, Ignasiak, Esquire .
JANI' p, KILaOYNI . A.soaIATI.
Suite 216, Hickory pointe
Plymouth Meeting, PA 19462
Petel' J, Hoffman, Esquire
NaKI..OaK . HO'rNAN, p.a,
1700 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Sarah W. Arosell, Esquire
Peter J. Curry, Esquire
THONA' , THOHAS . HArllt
305 North Front Street
P.O. Box 999
Harrisburg, PA 17108
Jeremy D. Mishkin, Esquire
Bruce H. Bikin, Esquire
NONTlJONUY, NaalAaltlN, WALlllt . IUIOAD.
Three Parkway, 20th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19102
C. James Zeszutek, Esquire
THOI'I, RIID . ARM.TItONO
One Rlverfront Center
Pittsburgh, PA 145222
, I
I,.,
01 '
, I
, I,
,Ii
"
I- I I'
.1.
I ,
",
1'1,
"
'w
~
t"'o
,
.
~N'I'R)' QF APPJ!:A1lANC~
Kindly enter ollr appearance on behalf of Defendanls, Brlstol-Myera Squibb
Complllyand MJ,lC Subsidiary Corp., flk/a Surllitek, Inc.
McCARTER & EN LlSH
By: Therelle M. eeley
OleM P. Callahan
Barbara K. Ootthelt'
Carolyn J. Campanella
1.0, Nos. 40813/483"1'3832170846
One Commerce Square
200' Markel Street, SlIile 32'0
Philadelphia, PA 19103
(21') 557-7700
,
,
Dated: ~. ~ ~? 7
" ,
, ,
"
"
"
,. 1
, ,
'.
"
\,
.2.
I,
..
,\>
1
~
UIIITlII) ITATI. DIITalCT COUlT~ ,': I I '.', I ,
rOI TlI HOITlla DUTIICT or ALAIAIOn6 ^"'. 1\'1111 30
10UDI.. DIVIIIOIf '--"J, 1\ , I J
^- G L I ) t '1 lJ,~, w...'.' .. ,', UI.,j
II III SILIC........ I .IIIA T ... .1' ,.. . 110., (J.lI/f , ,.,l'''~i'I,\
IM'LAIfT .IODUCT. LIAlILITY) 10,000 . "
LITIGATION (NDL ,:I,) I
alld
UNITID .TATIS DIITIICT COI1lT
rOI TlI 1f01TlI.. DISTIICT or ALAIAKA
SOUDI.. DIVISIOIf
CYJITIIIA R, KCG.I ANI) IUIIf KCGII
nailltUf8
If 0 , '....10.....
v,
DO" CO..lIfG nlGBT COI'OIATIOIf
DO" CO..IIfG COI'ORATIOIf, IIIIfTOI
COI'ORATIOIf, SuaGITII/MBC
.l1JSIDIAaY COI'ORATIOIf, BRISTOL.
KIYIIS SQUIll COR.OIATIO.., all4
10LY S'IIIT HOS'ITAL,
CIVIL ACTIOIf . LA"
D.f.lldant.
Jt1IY TUAL DIIWIJ)ID
DBFBNDANT'S RBSPONSE TO PLA~NTIFFS' MOTION FOR SBVERANCB
AND REMAND
AND NOW, comes the Defendant, Samir J. srouji, M.D. by and
through his attorneys, German, Gallagher & Murtagh, to
respect tully responds to plaintiffs Cynthia H. McGee and Ken
McGee's Motion tor Severance and Remand to Pennsylvania State
Court as fOllows,
1. Denied as stated. Plaintiffs tiled an action tor
personal injuries alleging products liability and other causes ot
action in the Court ot Common Pleas of Cumberland County,
Pennsylvania No, 372 Civil 1994.
2. Admitted.
3. Admitted.
~
,
""'"'\
I""tI
The Debtor Dow Corning can be severed
and other non-debtor detendanto only
it the parties agree to voluntarily dismiss Debtor trom the
action. Judge Denise Page Hood's September 12, 1995 Order, which
is currently on appeal, states that any removed claims against
the Debtor will be subject to the Multi-District Litigation panel
and such claims will bEl transterred to thEl Multi-District
Litigation Judge Sam C. Pointer, Jr. tor pre-trial purposes. ThEl
above reterenced Order. requires that such pre-trial pruceedings
not be inconsistent with the automatic stay ot the Bankruptcy
Court currently in ettect. (Memorandum Opinion and Order ot the
Debtor Dow Corning's Motion to Transter at page 25). Defendant
contends that Plaintitt's Motion to Sever is inconsistent with
the Bankruptcy Court's automatic stay. Defendant contends that
the only way this Debtor may be dismissed trom this matter is it
Defendant has no viable crossclaims against Debtor, and that may
only be determined it pre-trial discovery is permitted against
Debtor: Detendant has not been allowed to conduct any discovery
whatsoever since the Three Judge Panel in the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania issued their Case Management Order No. 9 on
September 8, 1994, which Order stayed all proceedings in the
Silicone Breast Implant Litigation, and which Order continues to
4. Mmitted.
5. Admitted.
6. Admitted.
'7 . Admitted.
8 . Denied as stated.
trom the claims against it
l
'1
1""'1
~ove~n t.he Multi-Dist~ict Litigation at this time. (Ca.e
Management Order No. 9 is Attached hereto all IiIxhibit "A" ).
9. Denied. Defendant is currently bound by the orders of
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's Three Judge Panel, Which
ord.~ed a stay of all proceedin~s in CaDe Management Order No.9,
on September 8, 1994. Case Management Order No.9, entitled
"Stay--Responsive Pleading/Discovery" states in pertinent part as
follows I
stayed in lawsuits seeking damages
to have been sustained in the use
(1) All proceedings are
for personal injuries alleged
of silicone breast implants I
(2) This stay applies (i) to the filing of any pleadings
other than a complaint or praecipe for writ of summons and (ii)
to discoverYI and
(3) This order of court does not apply to the filing of a
complaint or a praecipe for a writ of summons to institute any
lawsuits permitted by Case Management Order No.7.
(Attached and marked as Exhibit "B" is a copy of the Case
Management Order No.7). At this time, Defendant is governed by
the Stay of all proceedings, which was imposed by Case Management
Order No.9. The Three Judge Panel has not issued a subsequent
case management order lifting the stay of proceedings eatablished
by Case Management Order No.9.
10. Denied. On th6 contrary, Defendant contends that
Plaintiffs motion is premature since Judge Denise Page Hood's
September 12, 1995 Order is currently on appeal.
11. Denied. On the contrary, it is Defendant who will be
irretrievably prejudiced. Defendant has been unable to conduct
any discovery on this matter and therefore cannot establish
whether or not he has a viable crossclaim against Debtor. The
r,
,
~
(".
CRRTIFICATi ~~RYIXR
AND NOW, this ~ day ot . I..{J(., 1996, I, I.inda Porr
Sweeney, Require, hereby certity that I have this day served
Detendant's Response to P1aintitrs' Motion tor Severance and
Remand by sending a copy or the same United States Mail, regular
mail, postage prepaid to the tollowing counsel,
NatioDal Liai,oD COUD.el for Plaintiff. I
Francis H. Hare, Jr., Rsquire
HARB, WYNN, NBWBI.I. & NEWTON
Suite 800, Massey Building
290 North 21st Street
Birmingham, AI. 35203
J. Michael Rediker, Esquire
RITCHIB & REDIKBR
312 North 23rd Street
Birmingham, AI. 35203
Francis McGovern, Special Master
Univer.sity ot Alabama School ot Law
101 Paul Bryant Drive
P. O. Box 870382
Tuscaloosa, AI. 35487
National Liai.on COUDlel for Defendant'l
Mr. Frank C. Woodside, III
DINSMORE & SHOHI.
1900 Chemed Center
255 Bast Fitth Street
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Plaintiff., Liailon COUD..l for Pann.ylvania
Stephen Sheller, Bsquire
SHBLLBR, I.UDWIG, ET AI..
1528 Walnut Street, Third
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Floor
Alan H. Perer, Bsquire
SWBNSBN PBRBR & JOHNSON
Two PNC Plaza, Suite 2710
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
"
,
,
I
,
,
,
"
.H~".\ /: "J
,"'"
,.....~
ZD4ividual Ca.. '.~via. Li.t
James R. Ronca, ESqllirtl
SCHMIDT and RONCA P. C.
209 State Street
Harrisburg, PA 1,7101
Robert S. For.tar, Jr., Esquire
KRUSHN, SVAN6 & BYRNS
Suite 1100, The Curtis Center
601 Walnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19106-3393
Walter S. Jenkins, Ssquire
SWSBNBY, SHSBHAN & SPBNCBR, P. C.
1515 Market Street, 19th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Howard M. Cyr, III, Ssquire
HARVBY, PBNNINGTON, HSRTING
& RBNNBISBN, LTD
Bleven Penn Center, 29th floor
1835 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Joseph A. Quinn, Bsquire
David J. Selingo, Esquire
HOURIGAN, KLUGBR, SPOHRBR & QUINN, P. C.
8 Mellon Bank Building
8 West Market Street
Wilkes-Barre, PA 18701-1867
S. Gordon Blkins, Esquire
Donna M. Dever, Esquire
STRADLBY, RANON, STBVBNS AND YOUNG
2600 One Commerce Square
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Francis B. Marshall, Jr., Esquire
MARSHALL & FARRBLL, P. C.
1323 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17102
Lauren A. Stevens, Bsquire
Madeline M. Sherry, Esquire
HBCKBR, BROWN, SHYRRY AND JOHNSON
1700 Two Logan Square
18th and Arch Streets
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2769
jJ,
, '
"
I
'.
'. .
"
, .
, '
, ,
,
II >I
, I
,; I
I,
1
1
Allan H. Starr, Isquire
WHITS AND WI~tIAMS
One tiberty Place
Suite 1800
1650 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103-7395
Gilda Kramer, Bsquire
GItDA t. KRAMBR
Suite 1100
1500 Walnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Robert t. Ignasiak, Bsquire
JAMBS P. KItCOYNS & ASSOCIATBS
Meetinghouse Business Center
120 West Germantown Pike
Suite 130
Plymouth Meeting, Ph 19462
R. Craig Black, Esquire
McKISSOCK & HOFFMAN, P.C.
127 State Street
HarriSburg, PA 17101
Sarah W. Ar.osell, Esquire
Peter J. Curry, Esquire
THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER
305 North Front Street
P.O. Box 999
Harrisburg, PA 17108
Jeremy D. Mishkin, Esquire
Bruce H. Bikin, Bsquire
MONTGOMERY, McCRACKEN, WAtKER
Three parkway, 20th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19102
C. James Zeszutek, Esquire
THORPS, REID & ARMSTRONG
One Riverrront Center
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Plastic Surgery Associates or
Lancaster, p.e.
554 North Duke Street
Lancaster, pa 17602-2225
Joseph M. Walker, Esquire
MARSHAtL, DBNNBHBY, WARNBR
COtEMAN & GOGGIN, p.e.
20 East Court Street
Doylestown, PA 18901-4318
,," RHOADS
,----
"
I ,
"
I
'I
,
"
I'
"
,
I,
,I
"
'I
"
"
. " , I
""')
UP 1 319M
r--,
..'
1/
,/
,
. \'
, .
\ (
IN THI CO~T or COHHON P1.&AS or A1.~EOHINY COUN'l"t, 'ZNNSYLVMlIA
' AS
THE COORDINATING COURT POR SILICONE IMPLANT LITIGATION
IN REI
SILICONE IMPLANT LITIGATION
EXPLANATION rOR CASE
HANAOIMIHT OIlDER NO. 9
AM) CASE HANAODCDn'
OIlDER NO. 9
"
STAY--RESPONSIVI
PLEADINGS/DISCOVlRY
, '
HONORAlLE DIANt1IL A. CASSIHATIS
HONORAlLE SANtJRA HAZER MOSS
HONORAlLE R. STANTON WlTTICK, JR.
CHAIRPERSON
"
.,.
ill
,
,
" '
'\
, .
'"
,
,
-
t
ri
~
y.,.a~~:~..:;~:~=~,~. I
Xn Ca.e Management Order No.9, we an .tayinv all pl'oceeding.
in tlte bnut. ill'Cllant. litigat.ion othu than the filing of new
law.uit. until further order of couzt. Tlti. Ca.e Manag~nt Order
"
11 entend wit.h the conllnt of Steuing Collll\ittee Coun..l following
an Augu.t 10, 1994 meeting of Steering Committ.ee Coun.el and tlte
Coordinat.ing Court..
X.
At the Augu.t 10, 1994 meeting, we initially dilcu..ed the
pre.mption defen.e ba.ed on Graen v. Oollkv, 2974 Phila. 1993 (pa.
Super. 1994). On May 10, 1994, a three-judge panel of the Superior
COUrt of Penn.ylvania dismissed claim. again.t the manufacturer of
a cl,ss III medical device on the ground that. .t.ate tort claim.
~ involving a Cla.s III medical device are preempt.ed by the Medical
Oevice Amendment. of 1976 to the rederll Food, Orug and Cosmetic
Act.. (Plaintiffs'-request for allow~nce of appeal to the Supreme
Court of Pennsylvania is pending.) Bre,.t implant. are Class III
medical devices. On the ba.is of the Graan v. Oolakvopinion, the
1
-
""
r--
b~ea.t implant manufactu~e~. .eek di.mi...l of all claim. again.t
them on the g~ound that .tabe to~t law ha. been p~eempted by the
Medical cevice Amendmenta of 19?~. The he.lth ca~e p~ovide~. al.o
contend that thi, preemption defen.e ba~. mo.t of the claim. that
plaintiff. have ~ai.ed again.t them.
plaintiH. contend that (1) even if the 1976 Amendment.
p~eempt ce~tain .tate to~t cl~im.. p~eemption doe. not exten~ to
ela.. III device. that we~e ma~kete~ without p~ema~ket .pp~oval
f~om the FCA (plaintUh allege that thei~ bnaat implant. wen
ma~keted pu~.uant to an exception to the pnma~ket app~oval
..
~equi~ement fo~ device. .ub.tantively equivalent to devic.. on the
ma~ket p~io~ to 1976); (2) the p~eemption defen.e i. limited to
to~t law that di~ectly conflict. with a .pecific rCA ~.qui~ement
applicable to the pa~ticula~ device (plaintiff. allege that at the
relevant time. there We~e no FDA requirement. .p.cifically
applicable to brea.t implant')i and (3) the p~eemption defen.e i.
not available to a manufacturer which eng.ged in fraudulent conduct
during any pha.e of the procedure for obtaining app~oval for it.
product (plaintiff. allege that manufacturer. provided incomplete
and fal.e information to the FDA). Plaintiff. .eek to engage in
~ di.cove~tor the purpo.e of .howing that from the enactment of the
1976 Medical' Ceviee Amendment. until the 1990'., b~ea.t implant.
we~e marketed pur.aant to a 'grandfather' exception and that the
FDA never .valuate~ the implant.. In addition. they .eek di.covery
which may show that the manufactureu did not meet the fed.ral
2
-
..~
. \
r-
'Ii
r.powti~o~liqation. which required the manufacturer. to provide
complet....IIld accurate information requding the ..fety of their
Pl'oduCltl. The manufacturer. oppo.e th..e dilcovery reque.t. on the
ground that a. to Cla.. III m.dical devic.. the pl'..mption d.f.n.e
i. ab.olute; .v.n if plaintiff. c.n ..tabli.h that rDA involv.ment
wa. virtually non.xi.t.nt, that the manufactul'.r. failed to comply
with rDA I'.gulation. r.qal'ding the manufacturing proc..., or that
the manufactur.r. did not comply with rDA r,pol'ting obligation.,
f.d'l'al law .till bal" all .tate tOl't action..
Anothal' ar.a of di.agr..m.nt involv.. the ,cop, of any
..
praeqltion d.fen... If the 1976 Amendment. prelq)t Itate tort law,
pla.l.ntUfI cont.nd that the preemption iI limit.d to de_on
defectl. Defendant., on the other hand, cont.nd that the pr.-
emption def.n.. appli.. to claime ba..d on manufacturing d.f.ct.,
d..ign d.f.ct., and the failure to provide Id.quat. wal'ning..
A'luminq that the pr..mption d.f.n.. i. r.cogniz.d, there i.
a di.put. ov.r which parti.. may rai.. thi. d.f.n.e. The h.alth
care provid.r. cont.nd that thi. pr..mption det.n.. bar. mo.t of
the claim. that plaintiff. have rai.ed again.t h.alth car.
providerr. PldntUh, on the other hand, contend that any
pr..mption d.fen.. ba..d on the 1976 Amendment, appli.. only to the
manutactuwar. of m.dical d.vice..
.
II.
At the Augu.t 10, 1994 meeting, wf al.o di.cu..ed the federal
3
-
'''''''\ r,
OOl.ll't ola.. Iction lettlement agl'eement. Thi. .gl'eement wa.
re.ched in the ,pl'ing of 1994. Undel' thl .ettllment agl'llment,
more th.n $4 billion will be made available to women who experience
any of a li.t of injurie. or medical condition.. The amount of
compen..tion will be ba..d on I compen.ation .chedule that h a
part of the .ettlement agl'eement. The .ettlement Igreement cover.
the claim. of III women again.t the manufacturer. of mo.t of the
implant., Undll' the .ettlement agreement, women are given .evel'al
month. in whiCh to opt out of the cla../ if they do not do '0, they
are part of the settlement.
..
Pnvioudy, plaintiffa' coun.el had advhed u. that lal'ge
number. of Penn.ylvania women would cho.. to pursue their tOl't
claim. Igain.t the manufacturer. in the Penn.ylvania COUl't. and,
therefore, would opt out Qf the federal .ettlement. However, at
the August 10, 1994 meeting, we were informed that very few
Penn.ylvania women (PJ:obably le.. than two to three doaen) had
cho.en to opt out of the federal .ettlement.1
In the early fall, women who have not opted out of the fedel'al
..ttlement will be advised u to whether the money which the
manufacturer. have agreed to pay i. .ufficient to make the payment.
~ prOVided for in the .ettlement agreement" compen.ation .chedule.
lAccording to plaintiff.' coun.el, becau.e of the uncertainty
created by the Green v. Colakv opinion women are di.couraqed from
opting out becau.. of the pOlllibility that their tort claim.
against the manufacturers will be di.mis.ed on the ba.i. of the
defense that the.e .tate tort claim. are preempted by the Medical
Cevice Amendments of 1976.
4
-
'",
t""'-
II th. llMH\.Y h lnluUlclent, the compen..tion Ichedule wUl be
reduced In~ women will be given a lecend opportunity to opt out ot
the ..ttl~t. Al.o, the m.nuflcturer. h.ve . right to reject the
.ettlement if too mlny women hive opted out of the cl.... Thi.
proce.. will not be completed tor ..veral month.. Con.equently, we
will not know until early 1995 whether there will b. exten.ive
litigation of claim. again'l: manufacturerl of brea.t implant. in
the penn.ylvania .tat. court..~
III.
..
At the Augu.t 10. 1994 meeting, we al.o di.cu..ed plaintiff.,
claim. again.t the health care provider..
A. we previoully dilcu..ed, the health care providen are allo
rli.ing the preemption defen.e.
A1IO, the federal court ..ttlement allow. women who do not opt
out of the settlement to pur.ue claim. again.t their health car.
providers .
Conlequently, there are legal i..ue. concerning the
.,.
~The ..ttlement agreement 1110 cover. women with implant. who
at a later dat. fir.t .uffer the injuri.. and medical condition.
de.c~ibed in the ..ttlement .chedule. Thele women will have the
opportunity to opt out of the .ettlement at the time that the
lnjurie~~d medical conditione are diagno.ed if the money
rem.in!~ the ..ttlement fund i. in.uUic;:i.nt to make the
payulllntr Ii-....llid.d for in the ..t:t:lem.nt agreement" comp.n..tion
sch.dule. Con..qu.ntly, ev.n if the manufactur.r. acc.pt the
settl.m.nt and v.~ f.w plaintiff. with exi.ting law.uite in the
Penn.ylvania court. opt out of the ..ttlement, there rllllAin. the
po..ibility of lignificant litigation in the future in the
Penn.ylvania court. of claim. again.t the manuf.cturer. by women
who are not having any difUc:ultie. with th.ir implant. at thi"
time.
5
-
,~
I"""-
h..lth car. provid.rl' cl.im. ag.in.t the m.n~f.ct~r.r. for
contrib~tion and ind.mnity .. to wom.n who r.m.in 1n the ,.d.r.l
..ttl.m.nt. ,",I rnanufalltur.n cont.nd th.t th.y c.nnot b. requir.d
to p.rticipat. in the .tat. court proc..ding. involving th..e
wom.n', claim. .g.in.t their health car. provid.r. &nd that the
h.alth car. provid.r. CaMot recov.r again.t them. Th. h..lth car.
provid.r. .gr.. with the manufactur.r.' po.ition provid.d that the
plaintiff. all" tr.ated in the .ame fa.hion a. if they had provid.d
a joint tort-f...or 1'.1.... to the manufactur.r.. The plaiAtiff.,
on the othel: hand, cont.nd that they III&Y naov.r' the full UIOUftt of
..
.ny verdict .gain.t the health.,e"e provid.n 1... any .....y
.ctually r.c.iv.d und.r the f.d.ral co~rt ..ttlement. W. cannot
addr... th... i.lu.. until there i. . final court order ent.red in
the ,.d.l:al court proc..dingl .ddre..ing thi. i..ue &nd until we
know the .xt.nt to which h.alth care provid.r. plrticipated in the
hd.ral litigation. (If the he.lth can provid.n did not
participate in the 'ed.r.l litig.tion, th.y will contend that they
are not bound by any language within the fed.ral court ord.r which
re.tricts their right. to ind.mnity .nd contribution in .tate court
proceeding. . )
~ w. were .dvi..d th.t mo.t of the claims again.t the h.alth
car. provider. are whit all" r,'.rr.d to as S.ction 605 claim..
Und.r Section 605 of the He.lth Car. S.rvice. Malpractice Act (Act
of October 15, 1975, P.~. 390, No. 111, 1605, a. amended, 40 P.S.
11301.6051, any malpractice claim. again.t a health care provider
6
-
-\
(',
mad. more than four yell" .ft.r the alleged malpract1ce ar.
defended and paid by the Medical Profe..ionl1 t.iabUity Cata.troph.
t.o.. fund (CAT Fund). We w.n .clvh.cl that there have be.n
pr.liminary d1.cu..ion. involving Plaintiff.' St..ring Committ..
Coun..l, reprelent.tive. from the CAT Fund, Ind attorn.y.
repr..enting variou. phyaician, regarding a global ..ttl.ment of
the S.ction 605 claim.. Plaintiff.' coun.el ..ked whethu thb
Court would be willing to .upervi.e the negotiation.. We advi.ecl
the parties that a member of thi. Court would be available to act
in thi. capacity if we r.ceive a letter "'eque.ting our
..
participation from tho.e p.non. who need to be involved in any
.ettlement proc....
IV.
Following our di.cu..ion of the pr..mption i..u.., the .tatu.
of the fed.ral court litigation and plaintiff., claim. ag.in.t the
health care provider., we eli.cuI.ed how we .hould proce.d. Ther.
WII a consenlu. that w. ahould not b. addre..ing the legal and
factual i~.u.. regarding the preemption d.f.n.. until we know the
number of c.... again.t the manufacturer. that will r.main in the
." P.nn.ylvani. .tate courtl. If large numben of c.... rem.in in the
penn.ylvania .tate court. becaun th. manufactunrl ultim.tely
reject the propo.edifederal .ettlem.nt or becau.e large number. of
Pennsylvania women ultimat.ly opt out of the fed.rll ..ttl.m.nt,
the preemption issue AI to implant manufactureu will rec.ive
7
-
/........,
,-,
.1gnificant .tt.ntion In~ the focu. of the liti;.t1on will continue
to be th. cla1m. a;ainlt the manuhctunu. On the <Ith.r han~, if
the f.d.ral court litig.tion r..olv.. mo.t of the cl.1m. a;a1n.t
the manufactl.lr.r., the claim. .gain.t the h.llth can prov1~.n may
b.com. the focu. of the litigation.
..c.u.. of the un..ttl.~ natun of the law and the uncertainty
a. to the impact of the propo..d f.deral ..ttlem.nt agr..m.nt on
the p.n.n.ylv.nia .tate court liti;at10n, St..dng COlTlll1tt.. coun..l
and th. m.mb.r. of thi. Coordinating COl.lrt al.o b.li.v. that at
thi. t1m. the r..ourc.. of the p.rti.. and the court. .hould not b.
"
~.vot.d to the pr.p.r.t10n of indivi~lIal c.... for tri.l.
con..qu.ntly, we are .nt.rin; a .tay ord.r I' to di.cov.ry and,th.
Uli"9 of any n.ponliv. pl..ding.. 'I'bi. .tay oral' do.. not apply
to the in.titution of n.w law.uit. and, con..qu.ntly, doe. not toll
the .tatut. of limitation..
"
, ,
.
"
, "
, '
.'
-
~
"......,
IN '%'HI COUl'T 0' COMMON PLEAS 0' ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYINANIA
AS
THI COORDINATING CdlRT 'OR SILICONI IMPLANT LITIlJATION
IN RE:
SILICONE IMPLANT LITIGATION
CASE HMAGIMIlN'l' OReIR NO. ,
STAY--RESPONSIVI
PLEADING~/DISCOVlRY
OI\DI:R OP CO~T
AND NOW, this
.g
day of September, 1"4, it i. hereby
ordered that:
(1) All proceeding. are .tayed in law'l.lit. .eeking damage. for
'"
per.onal injurie. alleged to have been .u.tained in the 1,1.. of
.ilicone brea.t impllnt.;
(:2) Thil .tay appli.. (i) to the HUn; of any pleading. other
than a complai.nt or praecipe for a writ of .WlIlIOn. and (ii) to
dilcovery I and
(3) This order of court doe. not apply to the fUing of a
complaint or a praecipe fOI' a writ of 'l.IITIl\on. to in.titute any
law.uit. permitted by Ca.. Management Order No.7,
BY THE COlTRT I
.,.
)1/' "t.~ 11.
HONORABLE EKANUEL A.
c. :z;:;
~.....
CASSIM.\TIS
...
!yo .s. ~ /l.1 ~ /11 ~
.I HONORABLE SANDRA MAZER HOSS
~ .
R ~~
HONORABLE . STANTON WE'l"l'ICK, JR ~ :f
CHAIRPERSON
. ,
-
1'""'\
t"I
, '
, ,
I'
"
,'.1
,,'
,q
I',
"
"
"
ii'
'I'
,',
\' I'
'I'
'II
"
"
, ,
"
,
, I
I,
,.l,
"
I,
.)CHIIlT .
(""\
(\
,~,.U~O~:. ~:.=:a~::= ~ 10. 7
Cu. Manag.m.nt Order No.
I..king damag.. for perlonal
.u,t.in.d in the u.. of lilicon.
2 provid.d that no n.w law.uit.
injuri.. all.g.d to have bean
bre..t implant, ,hall b. f 11.d in
the court. of the Commonw.alth of ,.nnlylvania until furth.r ord.r
of court. W. .nt.r.d Cal. Manag.m.nt Ord.r No. 2 to giv. u. time
to d.velop proc.dur.. that would prev.nt litigation to recov.r
damag.. for,dilabl1ng di...... that have not and may n.v.r d.velop
without j.opardizing a woman'. ability to bring claim. for future
dlaabUng dil..... Ittributabl. to the u.. of l111con. bUilt
Manag.lII.nt
the Claillll
implant. if and wh.n th.y d.v.lop. Th. purpo.. of Ca..
r
Order No.7 iI to ~.rmit n.w laweuitl to b. fU.d for
__.__.....-.. __,._ ___." . .4. _..... . ...
that plaintiff.' coun..l ar. rai.ing in th.ir Ma.t.r Complaint .nd
.-....~-_.~. ...-..' ". -." .....-.....-.-.,. ..~
to allow damag. claim. for injuri.. clu..d by a di.ablin, di.....
- -_.~~- ....._._P__.._.__....____. .' .... ~ '.'" --... . . .." -,
to be rai.ed only .fter . .!'r~9.n d'''y'!.lof~... dil~b~.1.~~ dl.'~.~.!.-..
,.-..-.-.....-.
Und.r trlditional pdnciplu of tort law, the .Utut. of
limitation. be,in. to run one. a perlon know. or Ihould have know
of any injury which a mlnufacturer or health car. provid.r m.y h.v.
clu..d and . law.uit mu.t includ. III future dam.ge. th.t the
m.nufactur.r or h.alth car. provider may have elu..d. Und.r th...
1
'"""I
("".
pdnciplU, I WQman who hu her 1mpllnt. remov.d bee.u.. of ·
,,,inful condition .ttr1butlblt to the implant h.. .uffered an
injury (th. .ur9uy to remov. the implant). Conllqu.ntly, .h. hU
twO y"r. 1n wh1ch to br1n; . 1.w.u1t Igl1n.t the m.nuf.ctur.r or
hulth car. prov1der. Thh law.u1t mu.t 1nclud. Iny future dh....
thlt mlY b. Ittr1but.bl. to the 1mpl.nt .v.n thou9h .h. mlY n.v.r
d.v.lOp Iny 151...... from the u.. of .n 1mpl.nt.
At our requ..t, Su.dn9 Committ.. Coun..l d1.eu.lld
proc.dur.. th.t .hould be developed for thh Ut1;.t1on. Th.re
.pplln to b. . 9.n.ul conlln.u. lbout the 9011. th.t our
proc.dur.. .hould .ch1.v" Ste.r1ng Committ.. Coun..l do not w.nt
.ntic1p.tory Hti9.t10n 1natitutld on b.h.lf of wom.n who h.v. not
h.d thd r impllnt. remov.d .nd who hlv, not devaloped m.dl.e.Uy
d1agno..bl. di...... .ttrlbut.bl. to the lmpl.nt. Al.o, .t..rln;
Comm1tt.. Coun..l do not w.nt court. to be con.ld.rln9 cl.lm. for
dil..... that m.y b. .ttdbutablt to .iHeon. br...t lmpllnU until
the wom.n who nctiv.d .n lmpllnt .uUer. obj.ctiv.ly d.mon.tublt.. .
function.l 1mpl1rm.nt. "--. l } i
.....--.-.-.
MO.t of def.nd.nt.' dhculllon. .ddr....d a .two 151......
rul.. It h their polition th.t a wom.n .hould not be ptrml.tttd to
brlng . tort Ictlon .g.ln.t . m.nuf.ctur.r or hellth car. provld.r
untll .h. 1. .uff.rlng from a dl,gno.,bl. 151..... attrlbutabl. to
the u.. of .llloon. br...t lmpl.nt.. It I.. th.lr po.ltl.on that .t
th.t tim. .h. .hould b. requir.d to .u. for any pr...nt .nd fUture
damag.. that may be attrlbutabl. to the lmpl.nt.. Th.y .tat. th.t
-
2
""'"'I
~
the multiple di..... rull or..t.d in MU~lIarl v. bb.atlla ClIrp'r
1iU.., 612 A.3d 1021 (,.. 8u~r. 1":1), for ..butol litig.tion
.hou1d not be u..d in the implant litig.tion bec.u.. the chim. .re
very different.
D.If.ndant.' argum.nt .gain.t . mUltiple dh.... rull .ddu....
only ..riou. dil..... whiClh p1aintifh .ttribute to dlicon. bu..t
implant.. Th... Ire .11 dh..... th.t wUl c.u.. death or the
p.rm.nent imp.lrm.nt of .1gniflCl.nt bodily functlon..
w. .gr.. with d.f.nd.nt. th.t th.r. i. no ju.tific.tlon for.
multiple dl..... rule for cl.lm. involving di..bling di....... In
the typical tort CU" pinon. who .u perm.n.ntly dh.bl.d art
mou .u.c.ptiblt to ..riou. dh..... How.ver, w. do not allow th.m
to r.turn to court if th.y d.v.lop . ..riou. di..... in the future
b.c.u.. the initial .ward for the p.rm.n.nt dh.bUity hit provided
.d.quate comptn.ation for the harm that may aril. ln the future.
Thi. 1. equ.lly true in a ca.. in which. pl.intiff ...k. damag..
for I di..bUng dh.... th.t .h. .ttribut.. to the u.. of .Uicon.
bu..t implant..
ror th... r...on., w. will require . l.w.uit ...king d.m.g..
forad1aabllriv--dIl.... to rai.. .11 Claim. .ga1n.t d.f.nd.nt.
-." --.-..
__arhing out of the lmplant proc.dun.
r _._....-_. .----...-. - .
By limiting th.ir db CUll ion to ..riou. dh..... that m.y b.
.ttrlbutable to .1Ucon. implant., d.fendant. h.v. ignoud three
probl.m. th.t ar. of ..rlou. conc.rn to pl.intiff.. 'ir.t, wh.n .
wom.n h.. h.r implant. r.mov.d for m.dlc.lly r.l.t.d r...on., .h.
3
f,
'1
r'
1. .ntitl.d to h.v. the court. .t th.t t1m. conaider chim. for the
.ctual Idam'9" th.t .h. .u.t.in.d from the implant procedure,
1nclud1n9 the co.t of the 1mpl.nt .nd r.mov.l proc.dur..,
d1.f19ur.m.nt, p.in .nd .uff.rin9, humil1.tion, .nd .mb.rr...m.nt.
8.oond, if the wom.n who h.. h.r impl.nt. r.mov.d for medic.llf
rel.t.d reuon. do.. not brin9 . law.u1t within two f..n aft.r the
removal, under traditional tort law It 11 v.ry Hktlf that .ny
future cl.1m. for di...... which d.v.lop .t I l.t.r d.t. will b.
b.rr.d b.c.u.. of the r.l.t1on.hip betw..n the .t.tut. of
limit.tion. .nd the rule '981n.t .pUttin9 . e.ult of .ction.
Third, . wom.n who h.. h.r impl.nt. r.mov.d for m.dic.lly r.l.t.d
r...on. .nd .u.. only for h.r .ctu.l dam'9" will be b.rr.d from
br in9in9 . Iteond 1aw.uit for di...... th.t dev.lop .t . later d.t.
und.r the rule th.t .11 cl.im. '9.in.t . d.f.nd.nt .ri.in9 from .
Iin911 tran..cUon or occurrence mu.t be ....rted in . Iin9le
.ction.
In their M.morandum, Dow Cornin9 and Dow Cornin9 Wright
.ddr....d th... conc.rn. by .t.tinv th.t th'f do not b.li.v. th.t
h..lthf wom.n who h.v. th.ir implant. remov.d h.v. . O'UIt of
.ction und.r '.nn'flv.ni. l.w .nd furth.rmor., th.t the i..u. will
be moot with u.peet to th... d.fendant. bec'UIt th.y h.v.
initiat.d . program th.t will pay It l.a.t . portion of the co.t.
for the removal of .ny implant. manuhctured or .old bf Dow Corning
or Dow Corning Wright.
Dow Corning .nd Dow Corning Wright'. r..pon.. do.. not addU"
4
,,,,",,
(""'I
plli"tUfI' conc:ern.. Under P.nn.ylvlni. lIw, c.u... of .ctic)n
will likely uhf wh.n women without .Uic:on. impl.nt-related
dU..... h.v. their impl.nt. removed. con..qu.ntly, if w. do not
d.v.lop .peci.l peoc:.dur.. for thl. .ilic:on. br...t lmpl.nt
llt19.tl0n, wom.n who partlc:lpat. 1n Dow Oornln9" .nd DOw Cornln9
,
I'Ir19ht'. reimbur..ment pr09ram w11l b. forc:.d to br1n9 law.ult.
.9I1n.t Dow Corn1n9 or Dow Cornln9 Wr19ht and the h.a1l.:h cu.
provld." withln two yun of the removal of their lmplant. to
prev.nt the waiver ol! clalm. for h.rm from die..... r..u1l.:1n9 l! rom
the u.. ol! In implant th.t m.y d.v.lop in the l!uture.
It 1. antlclp.t.d th.t oth.r m.nul!actur.r. .nd po..ibly .om.
h.alth c.r. provld.r. will d.v.lop r.lmbur..m.nt pr09ram. .1mil.r
to the pr09r.m of DoW Cornin9 and Dow Oornln9 Wr19ht. II m.jor
purpo.. ol! th... pr09ram. 1. to .11mln.t. the tr.n..ctional co.t.
ol! 11t19.t10n to r.cov.r d.ma9" which. wom.n who.. imphnta h.v,
bun remov.d ha. .u.tain.d. If mo.t wom.n who h.v. their lmplant.
r.mov.d p.rtlcip.t. ln . r.lmbur..m.nt pr09ram and if thl. Court
d.v.lop. proc.dur.. th.t .limlnat. ant1c1patory l1U9.tion, the
implant 111:19.l:1on w111 mo.tly be limit.d to claim. ol! women who
h.v. d.v.loped eeriou, dl...... whlch th.y .ttrlbut. to the u.. of
.n implant.
w. can .ccompli.h thl. 90al by banin9 wom.n who h.v. h.d
th.ir impl.nt. r.mov.d l!rom brlnvlnv any cl.lm. l!or future di.....
11 th.y h.v. not y.t d.veloped a ..dou. dl..... .nd by a110wlnv
women to brinCJ . claim for .uch dil..... only 1l! .nd when the
5
'j' ~ f'"",
di..... d.v.lop.. 'uc:h proc:.durtl w U 1 reduc:. thl number of
I that IU.d Ind will .11 ow c:ldm. lor dh.bUn9
lIw,uU:. .re
dh..... to be BU9.t.d at a tim. wh.n there 11 .uff ic:i.nt
.vid.nc:. to p.rmit I jury to make d.c:i.ion. ba..d on trlditional
tort .tandard..
Thia Cu. Mlnlv.m.nt Order haa an efhc:tiv. date of Nov.mber
1, 1"3. w. ar. not p.rmittin9 n.w law.u1t. to b. 111.d prior to
Nov.mber 1, 1"3 bleau.. additional am.ndm.nt. mu.t be mid. to the
pldntitfa' Muter Compla1nt and the .hort torm c:ompllint that will
be u..d to 1n.titut. n.w llw.uit..
, I'
, ,
, ,
'!,'II
; "
I q'
I I
i I
Ii
"
, 'I
:.1,
I',
I,
,
I
I
"
I rI
.
,
I'
"
"
..
r-.
r',
!'
i
IN TH' COURT or COMMON PLIA' or ALLmaN'NY COUNTY, P.NN8~VANIA
A'
THI COORDINATING COURT FOR SILICONI IMPLANT LITIGATION
IN RII
SILICONE
IMPLANT LITIGATION I
CABI MANAGIMlNT ORDIR NO. 7
MODIrICATION or BTAY ORDIR!
SPLITTING CAUSES or ACTION
ORDER OP COQRT
AND NOW, on thil .z:!:. day of S.pt.mber, un, it iI h.r.by
ORDERED a. tollow'I
(1) (a) N.w law.uitl a,.king dam.gu tor peuonal injurh.
all.g.d to have b..n .u.Uin.d in the u.. of .11icon. br...t
implant. m.y be tiled in the Court. ot the Commonw.alth of
P,nn.ylvania wh.n.ver .n implant h.. be.n remov.d or h.. ruptur.d.
(b) Ilxhting lanuit. ...king damag.. for penonal ~.njuri..
all.g.d to h.v. be.n .u.tdn.d in the u.. of .11icon. br...t
implanta and n.w lanuit. permitt.d by .ubpauguph (1) (.) of thil .,:
---
Order of Court .h.ll not includ. any claim. for dam.g.. !r.om
di..bling di...... th.t m.y d.v.lop in the future from the u.. of
.11ioon. buut implant. unl... the p.non who r.ceiv.d the
implant. h.. 'lready d.v.loped on. or more dll.bl1ng db.....
.ll.g.dly Clau..d by the u.. of an implant.
".'.1'"' ,
(, ,
It,'-
l) .'
. (
\ J l' .
(.~J.
""'"
f""'.
(0) II penon who brlng. . lIw.u1t permltt.d b)' .ubp,uguph
(1) (.) of thl. Order of Court m.)' brln9 . ..oond lIw.u1t punu.nt
to plr.gr.ph (2) of thl. Ord.r of Court whloh r.l... tho.. ol.lm.
for dllll.g.. that h. or .h. could not ul.. ln the tint lIw.u1t
bec,u" of the rutrlct1on. of .ubp.uguPh (1) (b) of thh Order of
Court.
(d) ,. penon who do.. not bring . lIw.u1t permltt.d by
.ubp.U9r.ph (1) (.) of thl. Order of Court w1thin the p.riod
provld.d for b)' the .t.tut. of llmlt.tlon. w.lv.. onl)' the cl.lm.
for dllll.g.. th.t h. or .h. could h.v. r.i..d It th.t tlm..
(2) N.w l.w.ult. ...klng dlm.g.. for per.on.l lnjurl.. from I
dl.lblln9 dl..... .ll.g.dly clu..d by the u.. of . .1llcon. br...t
lmplant m.)' b. Hled in the Court. of the Commonwealth of
p.nn.)'lv.nh wh.n.ver on. o.~ more dh.bUng 1511..... Ill'g.dly
c.u..d by the un of .n lmpllnt hll be.n or .hould h.v. be.n
dllcov.ud. ,. p.non who .Uk. dllll.g.. for I dhabUnv dll....
all.g.dl)' c.u..d by the u.. of I I1Ucon. bUilt lmpl.nt mu.t ln
the .11II. l,w.ult ....rt clalm. for .11 c.u... of .ctlon ',Iin.t the
d.f.nd.nt. .rl.lng out of the .Im. tr.n..ctlon or occurr.nc..
(3) ror purpa... of p.r.gr.ph. (1) .nd (2) of thll Ord.r of
Court, a dl..bllng 151..... 1. .ny di....., lncludlng the n.tural
progre..lon of the 151....., th.t wlll c.u.. d..th or the p.rm.n~nt
implirm.nt of .ignific.nt bodily function..
(4) Exc.pt .. provid.d for in Plr.gr.phl (1) .nd (2) of thil
Order of Court, no n.w law.uit '''Ung d.mlg.. for penonll
lnjurl.. .ll.g.d to h.v. be.n .u.tainad in the UII of IUicon.
\
,
~
CYNTHIA H. MeOIl and ,
KIN MCcall, ,
,
Pla.l.ntLtt. ,
I
V. I
I
THI eOOnl eODANU. / INC. / a I
D.l.w.~. Corpo~.tion, I
indLvidually and a. .ucc...o~ I
in 1nt.~..t to Natuzal Y Suz9icall
,p.cLalti.., Inc. and A..th.t.chl'
.COT'OAH COJUlORA'1'ION, ,
A"LIED SILICONI eoRP., and I
'AMIR J. 'lO~JI, H,D., and ,
COSMETIC St1JtODY CENTER, ,
I
D.f.ndant. I
f"",
IN 'l'H1 COURT or COMMON PIoIA.
CUMBERLAND COQNTY/ PINNA.
CIVIL ACTION - tAW
,
NO. 3 7 J. ~ I q 1'1
JURY TRIAL DDlANDID
NOll'ra.
YOU .aVl .... ,0'D IN eouaT. If you wi.h to d.f.nd aiain.t
the claim. ..t to~th in the tollowini pa9'., you mu.t take action
within tw.nty (20) day. aft.~ ehi. Compl.int and Notic. a~. ..rv.d,
by .nt'~in9 a writt.n app.aranc. p.~.on'lly o~ by attorn.y and tilin9
in writin9 with the Court youz d.t.n... o~ obj.ction. to the claim.
..t fo~th a9ain.t you. You a~. warn.d that if you tail to do .0 the
ca.. may p~oa..d Without you and a judqm.nt may b. .nt.~.d a9ain.t
you by the Court without: tu~ther notie. to~ any mon.y cldmad in the
Complaint: o~ for any ot:h.r elai. o~ ~'lL.t r.qu..t:.d by the
Plaint:itt. You .ay 10.. mon.y or prop.rty o~ oth.r r19hta important:
to you.
YOU .10otD TAU 9%1 'UD '1'0 YOOl Lana A' Olfe..
zr YOg DO ~ .an A LAnD O' CU1fOI1' U'l01D 0.',
GO '1:0 oa T.ro...on 'l'U 0"%0' .n ro..,. litO" '0
rllm 00'1 ..... YOU CU Gn roocu. au.
COOl' ADIaJrl''''''101
~'~laad COWl\, CO~\.'U.., .,. rloo~
1 CO~'..u.. .~.
Cael1.1.,.1 17011-11.7
(717) 140-"00
TRUE COpy FROM RECORD
'r T,_ :\~,"i\ '~'I N".r1Ot, r :1Nr/ I,~/C. ~,t r,~' t~'M
",.J :~~ ,"...i ~1 ;:~:J C~I CJIK.;J, I~il.
Thl$ -: If;.Q~ c.t;;.' ~~: -! :~:; .
ProtIlOnOr.vy
Ii
r-,
Da,. 01 '\&I'9"'Y' Apl'11 u, un
I.cond 1\&I'9'~
'\&I'910n' 'I.i~ ~. I~ou 1, N.D.
343. T~1ndl. o.d
Cup Hill,'A 17011
Ho.pU:al' Rely 'p1~i~ HO':1~ll ...
'03 No~tn 21'~ tre.t
Cup HU1, PA 17011
DatI 01 'I.Ir,I"Y , Dlc.-bl~ 1', 1..1
Tnird 'I.Irfl"Y
'\&I',lon, 'u1~ ~. '~OUi1, N.D.
343. T~1ndl. Old
CI.p Hi11,'A 17011
Ho.p1tal, Holy 'p1I'1~ Ro.p1tal
503 Nortn 21.t S~I'..t
Ca.p HU1, PA 17011
!..nrar..
7. H.v. th., implant. b..n r..ov.d o~ rupturld?
x
Y.. No
.. I. Pll1ntiff ..ai.in, clli.. for dam.q.. froa .
di.lblinq di..... (a. d.,in.d in Pa~a9l'aph (3) of C... Kln'V"lnt
Ol'd.r No.7) cal.l..d by the 1.1., of I .ilicon. b~...~ impllnt?
II "y..," d..c~ib. the di..blinq di.....(.) th.t have
d.velop.d.
a.
b.
o.
cI.
..
I.
,.
h.
i.
i:
x
Y.. No
.av.r. plin in b~.a.~., cn..t and l.IftcI.r.....
Chronic fatif'l'
~oJ.nt 1V.111n,
30int pain
W.1Vbt 10"/v.i,bt ,aln
tvoll.n 1yapb nod..
~n... in .xtr..iti..
KIIa01'Y 10..
Dllficulty in cono.ntratlon
..n.itlvlty to 11,ht
Dry 'Y"
4
""'"
t""'I
~
'te.
"'"'IiO
count XXX - Vlolatlon of Itate Unl.l~ Trad.
'raotlo.. and Con.ua.r 'rot.otlon'~aw A,aln.t
Del.ndant Manufacturer.
.
a~!M. &da!H.~ .RLa~~ aoMW~.'
-
10, A. to tho.. .anufaotur.r. and relat.d co.panl.. that
Plalntltt (.) heve na.ed a. C.f.ndant., 'lalnt1tt(.) 1nao~orat. any
01a1.. for .uce...er 11abl11ty that ar. ral..d 1n tne Fourth Am.nd.d
Ma.t.r Co.plaln~ and any a..nda.nt. th.reto.
ca..a..,. ..a~!d"C. C~!K.
11, W1th p.rm1..10n ct the court, 'la1nt1tf h.r.by ra1...
oorporat. n'911;eno. cla1.. a,a1n.t a Cel.ndant ho.p1tal/cl1n1c 1n a
Short Form Compla1nt. S.e pp. 32-33 of th1. court'. S.ptember 7,
1113 Memcrandua and Ord.r of court wlth r..p.c~ to r..olut10n ot l
C.t.nd.nt., Pre11m1nary Obj.ct10n. to 'la1nt1tf., S.cond Am.nd.d
M..t.r COllpla1n~.
At all U... herdn rel.vant, C.llndant IAMI1\ J. SlOI1JI,
M.D., wa. an employ.r, .ervant, and a,.n~ of D.f.ndant eOIKlTIe
10000DY eIHTD.
WIJIIFOkl, 'la1ntltt(.) ..ek reoovery fro. Det.ndant. a.
follow. I
a. O.nll'l1 and comp.n.atory d...,.. 1n an aaount 1n
IXO... of F1tty Thou.and Doll~. ('10,000), Ixolu.1ve
of 1nt'~I.t and co.t.,
b. 'unit1vI d..a,.. a. allow.d by lav,
.
~
/....\
I'"
.wr..~:~~:'::;T.-& ~";r..l:\':\a~..r.
. -
I, CYNTHIA H. KOOII, that I .. the 'laLntLtt Ln the
tora9oLn9 aotLon and that the attaobed .hort Fora ComplaLnt L. ba..d
upon t~e LntoraatLon whLch ha. b..n 9athe~.d by my coun.el Ln
preparatLon ot thL. llw.u1t. Th. lanqua,e ot the 'hort Fora
complaint i. that ot coun..l Ind i. not mLn.. I have r.ad the Short
Fora ComplaLnt and to the extent that it L. ba.ed upon intoraation
whLch I have ,iven to my Goun.el, Lt L. t~. and correct to the be.t
ot .y knowled,., intoraat10n, Ind belLet. To the extent that the
eont.nt. ot the Short Fora complaLnt Ir. that ot coun..l, I have
relLed upon coun.el in makin, thi. VerLtLeation.
I und.ratandthat LntentLonal tal.e atat..ent. h.~.in are
,
'a.C... 14t04 relatLn, to un.worn
.ade aubject to the
tal.Ltieationa .ade
panaltia. ot 11
to authoriUe..
DATI01 n.". 19 19c1.:1.
I I
..
J' .",,'
. / . ~ (
" -ell" ~4. J \~
CYlI'l'B H. KeG..
~.
, ,"
,.
.~
. 1
r-.
J. .
1. On or a~out Augu.t 36, 1992, plaintiff' filed thi.
lotion for peraonal injuriea alleging producta liability and
oth.r oau... of aotion in the Court of Common Ple.' of York
county, penn.ylvania.
2. The plaintiff named Holy spirit Hospit~l, a penn.ylvania
he,pital, a. a Defendant in the .tate court aotien.
3. plaintiff alao named DOW Corning corporation a. a
D.tendant in her o..e (hereinafter "Debtortl).
4. Dow corning corporatien aubaequently tilod tor
bankruptoy proteotion under Title 11 in the united state.
Bankruptoy court for the Ea.tern Diatrict of Michigan on May 1~,
199~.
~. On Auguat 8, 199~, aa part ot a massive removal action
,.
to the Diatriot Court of Pennaylvania purauant to 38 U.S.C. II
14~3(a) and 1334, Dow corning removed this eaee.
6. The removal. were baaed solely on the debtor'S
~ankruptoy filing and were not baaed on diversity of citizen.hip,
federal question, or other grounds.
7. On September l~, 199~, the Judicial panel ot MUlti-
Di.triot Litigation conditionally transterred this case and tho.'
attached a. Exhibit "A", along with many others, to thb
Honorabl. Court.
8. On september 12, 199~, the Honorable Denise page Hood,
united statea Distriot Judge tor the Eastern District of
Miohigan, entered a Memorandum opinion and order of the Debtor'a,
Dow Corning, Motion to Transter and a Memorandum opinion and
.-.
~
J.
Ord.r on the Non-De~tor" Motions to Transtar, lordering that
Mot~on. .e.king to sever De~tor and/or remand the claim.
involving non-debtor'. aheuld ~e granted. (S.. attaohed Exhibit
"B". )
9. The Thr.. Judge Panel in the Commonwealth of
penn.ylvania had indicated a willinqne.a to tast traok aome of
the attaohed ca.e. fer trial againat the non-debtor manufaoturer.
and/or phy.ioian. during the 1996 calendar year.
10. Pldntitt. believe, and aver, that.everance La
appropriate .0 that the claims against the non-debtor. can move
forward without delay.
11. Plaintitt. believe, and aver, that they will be unduly
prejudiced it this Honorable Court does not grant thi. Motion fer
Severan~e and Remand.
12. Plaintitt. believe and aver that under 11 U.S.C. I
e02(b) (1) the claim. against Debtor, Dow Corning, cannot be
diami..ed with prejudice, in lieu of severance, as .uch aotion
would allow the Debtor to Object to the tiling ot a proot ot
olaim.
13. None of theae oa.e. haa alleged a conspiracy theory on
th. part ef the Debtor, Dow corninq.
'..
,
j "'1
/'- ,
I""',
WHIRlrORI, it i. r..p.ottully requeated that thia Honorable
Court .xeroi.. it'. juri.diotion under 38 U.S.G. II 1334(0)(1)
and 1453(b) and remand the.e ca... to the .tate oourt in the
intere.t of ju.tioe and equity.
R.apecttull
8CHMC.
aubmittecS,
ONCA, P.C.
8Yl
,-I'
James R.. onca
I.D....I2!} 31
20~t e stre.t
Harri urq, PA 17101
(712~ :23:2-11300
Attorney tor Plaintiff.
"
."
.\
, ,
"
'.
, '
,
_1'1
"
'II I II
.,
.,'
",
, ,
1 -',
1'1,
, ,(
1 ,
"
. ,
.,
I'
, ,
" "
'.'
'.
" ,
,-,
.
PAULA CHUBB, I
I
Plaintiff I
I
V. I
I
DOH CORNING WRIGHT CORPORATION, I
DOH CORNING CORPORATION and I
HARRISBURG HOSPITAL, I
I
Defendant. I
f"".,
IN THE COURT or COMMON P~EAS
DAUPHIN COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
NO. 2112 S 1992
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
----------------------------~----------------------------------------
DAUPHIN COUNTY NO. I 2112 S 1992
MIDDLE DISTRICT NO.1 119~-CV-1286
NORTHERN DISTRICT
or ALABAMA NO. 96-P-10647-S
1 ,
'1
,.ii, 1
..
."
, , ,
1 \'
, 1 "I"
I' , "
, ,
'I , "
.1
" "
"
,
,
,
i ,
, "
,
,
, ,
,
I'
1
"
,
,_ '-I
~
JANEl GINTER land DARREI.I, GINTER,
hUlband and wite,
PlaintittB
v.
ROBIRT M. DAVIS, M.D.
YORK PLASTIC SURGERY
ASSOCIATES, LTD.,
DOW CORNING CORPORATION,
a Miohigan Corporation
DOW CORNING WRIGHT CORPORATION
a 'l'.nne.... Corporation,
YORK HOSPITAL,
NO. 1218 S 1~93
Oatendants
--.------------~---------------------------------------~--_._--.-----
DAUPHIN COUNTY NO. I 1218 S 1993
MIDDLE DISTRICT NO.1 119~-CV-1290
NOR'l'HERN DISTRICT
or ALABAMA NO.
,I
96-P-10649-S
" ,
'I J ,\I
,1'1
'I.'
, ,
,I
, 1
.,'p;:
-,
I
l.OLA SWARTZ a/k/a MAE SWART'
Plaintiff
v.
DOW CORNING WRIGH~ CORPORATION,
DOW CORNING CORPORATION, and
HARRISBURO HOSPITAL,
Defendant.
,
-_._------------------------------------------_...-.~..._--_._.._-..~
DAUPHIN COUNTY NO.
1499 S 1992
MIDDLE PISTRICT NO.
1195-CV-1300
NORTHERN DISTRICT
or ALABAMA NO.
96-P-l06~~-S
I.
,
,I ',I
, '
,
,
.''1.)
,
"
'I'i
'JI
1 '
, ,
I'
i'i
,
1"'1
'1
"
t,f.
1
'I Ii
,
f"'"\.
JEANNI W. WOLF and PAUL A. WOLF, I
hu.band and wife, I
I
Plaintiffs I ' I
I
V. I
I ,
I,
I
DOW CORNING CORPORATION, I
DOW CORNING WRIGHT CORPORATION, I
JOHN C. SCHANTZ, M.D., and . I .'
PLASTIC SURGERY ASSOCIATES or I
LANCASTER, P.C., I
I
Detendants I
,
.--_.._------------------------------------------~-~--_._..~-----_..--
DAUPHIN COUNTY NO. I 4924 S 1993
MIDDLE DISTRICT NO.1 119~-CV-1301
NORTHIRN DISTRICT
or ALABAMA NO. 96-P-l06~6-S
1\
.,
'J IJ
I' "1
1'1
\,I,l
Ii
;1
,j'
I
, .
'I,
, ,
, ,
i'l
it
1,1
III
,
,I
,!
II "
,
.1
"
, ,
~
AUDREY DIC~ Mnd JAMES S. DIC~,
hueband and wite,
Plaintiff.
v.
ROBE~T M. DAVIS, M.D.I
YORX PLASTIC SURGERY
ASSOCIATES/ LTD. I
DOW CORNINO CORPORATION,
a Kioh19an corporation I
THE COOPER COMPANIES, INC.,
a Delaware Corporation,
Individually and aa .ucce.eor
in intere.t to Natural Y
surgioal Speoialti.., Inc.
and A..theteoh, BAXTER
HIALTHCARI CORPORATION,
a Delaware Corporation fta
succe..or in intereat to
Heyer-Shulte Corporation,
American Heyer-Shulte
Corporation, and American
Ho.pital Supply corporation I
CUI CORPORATION, individually
and a. .uco...or in intere.t
to Cox-Upheft International,
MENTOR CORPORATION
a Minne.ota Corporation,
Det.ndant.
. ,
. ,
.,
,
,
.\
-------------------------------------------------------------------.-
YOR~ COUNTY NO. 92-SU-5482-01
MIDDLE DISTRICT NO.1 119~-CV-1310
NORTHERN DISTRICT
or ALABAMA NO. 96-P-l06~9-S
"
'"
-"
,
".~,.~~
lilJN \.1.'''' ',1.1 H.' HY
111ft.
n............... ~
.
,.-..
(
lJNlTED STATES DISTRICT COURT
E"Sn:~'4 DISTRJCf OF MIClI/GM'-I
SOliTHER.'4 DIVISION
0::
:;"
., -
-"
c,. .
""-
-
.,.
.'11','
":)..
~.
.. ..
!f
- ..
.....'
..
.t:- .-
...
,...
::
~
III RfI
DOW CORNING CORPOR." TION,
D.blo r.
r-
't'.
Cn.. No, 95.CV.713~f.o1
I
HON, DENtSE PACE HOOD
MI;~OIUNDUM OPQ:ilOtl,~D QRDEI\
ON TH}: DEBTOR DO~ COR/'I'rNG'$ MorlON 19 TRANSFER
l. INTRODucrrONIF,.\CTS
Thi, matter is bercHe the Court on the Debtor Dow Comins Corporalll)n', motion to
lran,fer certain breast implant cases to the l.'nited Slatu Dlmicl Court. EUlem District of
~lichijl/l pursuMl to 2S V,S C. ~ I H(b)('). Responses were !iled and 01 heannll W&.!l h.ld on
the matter,
/l.t the I)nset, Ihe Court IS very cosnizant of Ihe rillhts of the claimo.nl$ Invo/\eoJ in th"
matter under our judicial system .J.l welllU lhe protections afforded 10 the Debtor Dow CominS
under our b.nl<ruptcy laws. With chese sometime competina Interests in mind, the Court has
attempt.d to balilllC' the dllhtS or both the Debtor and lh. claImants in itJ deCIsion.
On May IS, 1995, the Debtor, Dow Coming (orporotion. louSilt a 'ioIUlltU'1 p.titlon ror
reorianlzallon und.r Chapter II ofthot Bankt1Jplcy C\Jde With the SilI\k;1Jptcy Court ofth. l:nited
Stllles DIStrict :COlJrt, Eastem District or Michlian. Northem Division in Bay City. b'/v,e ch~
Honorable ..I,rthur J. Spc~tor. On rune I~. 19'1~. the Debror /ileoJ a motion 10 tro.nsrer cel'lOln
brenst implant :ases beror~ :he Bankruptcy C'lurt. Jua~~ Spotctor enlcred II Delcrmination 3nd
RepQrt .1rrl R.e~Qmmcndalion Rcaardina :he Debtor'l ',(oClen :Q 7rans(er on June i}. 19C)~
I I
. I
".~"'."',""II
I .' ""', '
I", .' .0"",."I""',.i'
"'I' ' -',......... .,',
"
I, _ ," ;,',',:
. .
1111 L.l'''~ ~II~ L.\ "" FI.\;L\ lill 11,11;
r-.
indicating Ihat Ih~ Dmncl C~,,(1 had j"risdktion over Itu~ mOlion. On July 5. 1995, tlUs Coun
enlfred 311 order provisi'lnally trlJ1st'erring Ihe opt'llut bre;ut irnpl3l1t c;uc~ ll\volvlngllHI Doblllr
~nly to Ih~ E;utern l?iscrkt of Michigan pending a hc:arlnilsch~d"led for lh~ motion on July 31.
1995.
Debtor is a leading producer or" silicone products. Dow Coming WIl.S formed in 194) ;u
a corporation owned by Co mini rncorporaled 3I1d Dow Chemico1l Company (uch hu a 50%
ownership inlerest) to develop and produce silicones and silicone products during World War [[
[n 1994, th. Debtor Dow Coming's IOlalsales were neillly 52 billion. The Deblor manufactured
brust impl3l1ts for commmial use from appro:.:imately 1964 llnril 1992. During a part of this
lime, the DebtOr also supplied certo1in raw materials 10 Qther bre~t implanl m3l1uiacru.rers.
AccQrdlng 10 Ihe Debtor. in Ihe yell of its highesl sales in 1991, breasl impl3l1lS only accounted
fQr leu than I % of the Debtor's sales.
Silicone gel breiU! implanls consisl of a silicone elastomer "envelope" filled '...ith silicone
llel. The implants JJ'e surgically impl,ll11~d ior purpos~s of ~rea~l reconwuclion in breast cancer
patients ~nd for cosm~tlc reasons These Impl;1t1ts hove Ihe lame ch~micJI make up ,1S silicone
mattflals "sed to make catheterl. shunts. i=acemaker kads .md other medkal deVices.
en th~ early 19905. silkone bre:Ut implants were subject 10 Q~c3sl()nal product liability
lawsuits. By 1981, 50 such lawsui15 hod been med. In 1990 and 1992. over \00 lawsuits were
med a~3inst the Debtor. Ho.lwe'llr. beg\Mlng In 1992. the Implant litlllation dr3sti~31ly increased.
Over J .000 sujts were [lied 19Mst the Debtor in 19<)1. over tOCO in 1'191 and o'er 7.000 in
199~. The litigation lnclud"d bOlh individual claims and aCtlQns oJn behalf of pUlatlve classes.
By elll:' 1995. the Debtor W;ll 3 Defendant :n ~5 pUtOIIVe class action lawsuHs (i 1 In 'J.tIQUS
.
I ,
(""..
I ' .
federlll dlMCI couns, I Z in It. Ie couns and 2 in C3Jlad.) 3Jld ov.r 19,000 IndividuAl IlwIld".
AlIlhe sull$ combln.d involved mOra than J6.000 claimants, The Deblor wo., sued both R.I Ihll
manwacrurer of br'IIC implan,s I1Ild supplier 01' siUcone row maleriols to ~lher brellSl implanc
m&nuf.crurers.
.I.,ccordlnll co the Debtor. Ihen claims uniform'lly allell' ehal bre.,l ImplMI' co~.
dl..."s. Includlnll oUloimmun. dl...,e. scleroderma. syslemlc disorders. joinl .welllnll I1I\d
chtonic faciaue. The damalu soulht in thlSt cues art subscanllal, ran.in.l'rom hundted. Qr
thousand. 10 ltns of millions of dollars in compllnsatory and punitive damallS. Claim. Involvin,
m.chanlcal defecu, fncludinl ruprure of the imlllant.s. "'.' also ~lelled by the clalman".
In lune 1992, pursuanelO 28 U,S.C f 140;, Ihe Judicial Plllel on Mulli DIslrict t.itilll\tion
("~lDL") ordered thae f.deral actions lnvolvin. brea'l implanes b. transferred 10 the Honorable
Sam C, Pllint.r In Ihe Nonhem Dislricl of .o\Jobama for coordirlat.cj or cons~lldal'd prellill
proc.edlnas ("MOL No. 926"). In re Silicone Gel BreuIlmplanu Products Llabillr, L\lillatiQO.
~lDL No, 926. 793 F.Supp. 1098 (J.P,~~U. 1992).
The Deblor asse.~s that os thll lieilladon prollrus.d, so did effortS to achieve 11 II10bll
resolulion of this cOnlroversy, Alehouah the Debtor contends thol its products were sa(e :l.nd did
nOI cause che disea.,es bein\! elaimed, II was ~ompelletl 10 r.cosnize lhat its resoure=s were not
unlimited and that the Illigaeion w;u dlv.rtin. manogemenl's attention from the compl1l\Y'S core
buslnessts and thaI ehe costs of conlfnuec1 Ileiiation would ~e SUbSI.1/\li31. Aceordlnll ro the
D.beor, 11\ 1994. i15 Iiligaeion CoSl~ 4:((eed~d S200 million
"
Aft.r months of negoliatlons Wilh eo-defendanrs and clllm3nes. 0 eoun-approved "Sleerinll
CommlllCe" represencinl br~3.st implanc claimantS, the D.blor and ~eher implant ml1l\UfaCNrers
J
I l
o
I
.nlfred infO a "il1obaJ I.n/cm.nl" of blO~1 imp lane claim. on M,v~h 23, 1994. Tbe O.hror
Ilrced co conlribuld up 10 $2.01 billion (OUI of a 10lalrenl,menl of S4.1j bi/llon) or Ih. fundln.
required by the sonl.roenr. ludic Poinler approved lh. scrtl.m.nt as fair And c.a"onabl. in I
Sepcemb.r 9, 1994 Order ;1ft,r certlfyinll on. ot' Ihe ~on'olldaccd f'dcral 'cllo~ as 11 cia" acclon
Cor purpous of I.nlcmenl Ulldcr F'd.R.Civ.P. 2J(b)(3).
rc appea" thac the il1obal,cnl.m.nl did noe ruolv. the conllOvOtSy otnd the fulUl. of thaI
I,re.m.nl, ae this cim., il in qUClllon. Fim, Ih. ,-\sr.em.nl Is OVtrlub.cribcd in thae ehe cllims
befnl mad. allinn Ihe "lIbli,h.d funds ueccd the D.Cendanc,' tIuIdln, commlcm'nc" Second,
numeroIU cia/manu have opl.d noe ,10 Pil1tlclpiSct' In the s.nl.m'CIl, .Icecina iMcad co pumlc
individu3J luil,. As of May 1995, ov.r 6.000 claimallll had opl.d OUI of Ih. Illobal Slnlemene
and 11. putlu/nl individual aceion. ("OPI'OUt" clalma.nC$). The D.blor aslCrU thaI ie cIMoe both
fund lh. sCCllemeOl and conlinu. to incur lubllanrialliullafion COsts in ~oMcceion with th. op,e,oul
chi/manes. Th.se ope-oue claims which led to cosIly pro~udinlS in scaCe ~ouns, iIle a m3jClr
reason for the D.bCQr's decillon co seck bankrupccy proe.ction. accordinl 10 eh. Debt<lr.
In '41ly 1992, the Food and DnJll ,",dministration ("FDA"), a"ked (or a voluntAry
mOrarOtlum on Ih. production of breast implilllt.l. Since thai lime, the D.blor h;u rri.d to v.rdict
11:< br.asc implillle cues involVina nine claimanrs. The jury reC\lmed a v.rdi~r in (avor of che
Debcor in three ot' eh. clUes; in favor o( the plainliffs in cwo of the cases: I1/lU in the li:<th r.a$e,
involvina two plainciffs, rhe jury found in favor of on. plainri(( and allain" the olhe~. ..l.ccordinll
10 rh. D.bcQr, non. of eht juri.s have aW31ded punillve damall's in rho POsl.moratorium trillls,
Thl! Debtor ass.rts thaI brellst implanl trials lle rlm-.consum;na. Co)mpl.~ scianlitic
evidotnc. is Involved in v31ious sei.ntitlc litlds. The ~bo~'e trials ran~.d In l.nllth rrom cwo :0
~
IIf.ll. O~ lll.IN 1.1. LII F.\.t lL' .IH II11j:
'HiLLIR.
.I,ven wuk., ueludlns monlh. of pr.paralion thai pr.e.d.d ~aeh trial. .4,l:eordlns co the Deblllf,
,
lh, c.nlfal IlIue w.., che mne~ whecher sllieon. i.1 brease implanlS cau.. 4iu:l.l.. 'rhe Otbrllr
~Ut"' eh.1 eht eampluily o( lh. cues placed ae a subS/anlial di,advlIllI.,t il. efforts eQ deaJ wich
the opl-oue ~lllm. which wero b.ln. pursuod In SIal. courts. Th. .rae. proceedln,. w.r.
UIIcoordin.l.d and tri.l daees w.re ov.rlappin.. When Ie m.d (or banknJpley proltcrlon, chI!
D.beor r'aced ,pproximll.ly njn.ey erial. qv.r chI ntlXI sill manllu, Includln, seven crial. wlch
Iw.ney..iahr plalnclfr. In Texu durin, che monch of Jun. 199". From che D.blor', p.flpccllve,
lh.u cllnl\!cclnl lri.1 uninls ere.lId (rlllllle condlrlon. chll m.d. h impouibl. 10 fairly,
.
rllionally. and .fIlcionlll' resolv. the cenlrlll scienlille issue of wh.lh.r Implants caw. lh.
dlu:l.les char art all".d, Th. Deblor illites lhal il could not sUc~wnb to cxorbitane .."I.m.nt
demand. nor could Ie So 10 lrllll knowinSlhal il could noe mUleer the r.,ourcu ntc.Slary co
moune an .!'r,cllv. d.f.nse on so IllIllY fronrs slmuhlll.ously. Th. D.blor cl.ims il wu fllrc.d
10 lick bankruptcy prol.etion under Chapl.r II or ch. Bankruptcy Cod.. How.v.r, d..pil. th.
Chaplfr ! I proceedinlls and enc aUlomatic llDy ;lrovislons ot' II tJ.S C. ~ 362, en. br.ast impllllc
Iilil3rions 31. slilllJnloin.. Plainliff. throulhout lhe L'nll.d Slales illI~' t1led nouces of nonSUit
aiDinSl, di,mluals of 3I1d mouons ro se'l.r th. Debtor in ord~r 10 proceed 10 trllll alain" Dow
Ch.mical Co. andlor Comins, [nc. In lun. and July 1995, suits alainsl Oow Ch.mical andlo,
Comln. W"t SCI for lrial in num.rous counti.s chrOU.hOUI r.~u.
The Oebeor h.., .nvi,illn.d esseneially a t'our.st.p proclS. in iu rcorSlllizllrlOn proceed in,s,
The D.blor's proposal claims 10 hav. rak.n into account the lubsWIlI~e and procedural rllhts of
th. opr'lJut elaimams OlId also cn'Utes lhe inl.;rily ()( the banl<l"lJpley prOQudlna. Th. (1m SI,P
IS Ih. r.moval to local (,d.ral district COUrlS o( stOlt Opt'OUI claims involvln. lh. Debtor'l
"
, ,
ll~ ~I.I/'I 1.1: II F.\.I ll~ Ij~ IIllll
(
imp/'llIs pur.U811110 23 V.S.C. f 1451(~J. The second ,tep ilrh~ 1",11I11 mac/on 10 Irlln'(fr,
,
which .eck$ co have all at' rile OPI'OUI aClion, rilen rrilllst'errcd to rile E.utem OtsC/lcr or r-.UChJ'lII.
Should rhll second ,IIep be iT~llIed. the third srep is a motion 10 co"sOlidllte lhe tl'o\I1,rerred c:lailtlil
and ilII url)' Irial on Ih. threshold Issue or' whether implilllr, cause elle dlsus" b.lnll claltn.,J
punu.1ll eo Fed.R,Civ.P..n. The Court would oversee. consolidal.d, adver.4T)' lJ'il1l cher Would
focu. on Ihe .ciemlllc ~vldence iU II relarcs to Ihe core Issu. of cauuc/on wlUch would b. bindln,
on all Opl'OUI claimanl'. 'The founh llep Is ror the bal\f(njprc)' court 10 conducl .an eSlimalion or
olher valuallon proceed ill'. la.kina Inro .ccountlhe r"ull. of the threshold trial on call.tllllon. .2J\d
10 .rpro...e I plan or reora3lllueilln' rille is consislenr with chal delenninallon. Addillonal
proceedinas ma)' be Iherearter d'lermIM~ by lh. Court at lhe conclusion or Ihe CllImQllon or
....Iu.tlon proe.edinas. lakin, iOlll accoune che bankruplcy court's plM or reoraana.:llion.
I
The Oflicial CommlCTu or' Ton Claimanls ("illn ClaimanlS" or elle "Committe.") assert.
in les brier' in oppOsition 10 che Deblor's ~lolion 10 Transrer lhal Dow Chemical 3lId the Deblor
knell' or and concealed rrom Ihe public lubmnlial dala SUlautin, chal silicones Wert dan,erous
10 the human body, :-;olWithstandlna che D~blor's and ils partnts' repe~ted assurances 10 the
;lublic lhll it.1 ~roduels wert lire, Jur:' awards. Sel1lemcnts illld a ...ery large propoled closs
setllement reflece thol chousands ~f women hava suffered Injuries as a resulr or recei vina che
impl3llls, The Committee asserts chat apon f:om :he issue of diseue causolion, m3llY brC3~t
impl3llt recipienls have betn injured and~flen hornbly sc.ured by che rupnmnll ()r leoJcinll of
impl3llls. Coanlless others (e3f thoc their implill\lS m3Y ruplure or lellJc in the IUcure. These
Wtlmen 'lIher have had or will need III hal" costly ~nd painful "explanlolion" surll,ry co remove
their Implants 3lId 3fe entitled 10 substanllal damo,cs r~ll3tdless (If whelher the leaJllnlslHcone
~
6 ,
II
1I~. 1,', \1~ lll.I,~ 1.1.11 I'.U 1l.1 Il~ "11l~
iHt:LLt:~. L t. 8 ("_',
Gil":.'
al,o ~Qus.d .. "JI..il.I..,' Th. Committ.. furr,her ,lu,ns lhll thll incld'ncQ ." vmriou. ooolllllon.
villi., with ra~h womolJ1 d.p.ndin~ on rhelt po.rtlcular mcdlcal hiS/ory and billloilo.'
charaCI,r/Slic..
Accordlna to lh. CO/T1mi<<ee, I.....ral juries <>( rJ1e Uniled SlIle. h"I' .ntered verdlce.,
rani/nllneo lh. million. of dollar.. holdinl the Deblor lI.ble (or Injuries caused by il. br'ilIl
implanl', Th.. Committe. &I"". th.1 rJ1. D'beor hopes to \VIp. OUI eh... Judamenl, and Ihl.
hlllory .hould II pr,vail In on. consolidaled trial in rhi. OI.lrict and .limlnat. Ie. liability 10 l.n.
or hundr.d. or rhouS4/1d. o( Injured \Vomen.
Th. CO/T1mittee leaet~ rJ1ae \Vhile rJ1. ilobal ,.rtl.M.nlapprov.d by ludi' Poinrer ot' over
$4 billion I. .izable. ie IS insuttleient to comp,nw. th. pl.ineiffs fur lh. injuries :hey h.v.
.urf'r.d. In a report r.leOSed on lun. IS. 1995 by lh. cl.ims admin/sltaeor apPoineed by ludae
I
I
Poineer to impl.menl che ilobml .oInl.menl, T.xlS SIal. Co un Iud I' Ann Coohtilll, "40,000
\Vom'n have r'lisler,d under rh. senlemenl as pOlencial claimanl.,
fn irl Morion 10 Transfcr, ehe Commmce usert. char che Debeor has Wl'eilJ<ed procedurOlI
hll~'OC by r'mo~'inl numerous pendlna scace COurr ,ales ro fed,ral COurts. ."Iany of chest cases
hllV, subsequtnlly been transferr'd co Judge Poinrer i.S "t3~.along" ~SScls by che ,I"fOL PlIlel.
These Cilles join eh. mort r.han 10.000 .I(liOns /tlltller IroUls(err.d co ludg. POinr,r pursuanr to Ih.
,'-rot Panel'. d.lermin.tion rJ1aljoinl prelrlal proceedini' b'(ore a sinile COurt thole could develop
lubsll1t\lial '~pertise WOuld conserve reSOurces and borSI serve rhe intertsu of .I" plllties.
Aecordini to the Commince, chI Debtor' j anempc to transfer JII Opc"lur sctions ro chis CIJUrt
would run rou.hshod \l~er rhc :onsiderect Juctgmenrs of the ,'vIOL Pan.1 and UMCCfSSlllily place
thi. Coom on a colliSion course with Judg, POinter. Th" Commiet.e j,Jserts th.t JuoJl' Poinrer
i
1111.110.' .11I1S L,I: 1: F.I.X 1I,\ .\j~ ,,OJ:
''"'''1
h/U ~~qijlr.d an Intimale Md unrivaled famjllariry wilh the br.3.tl Impll1ll1 lilia_lion .lac.
pre~idlnl over the con~olidaled ple.rrlBJ promdlnw~ in the lho1ll4l1d3 o( pendinll f'd.roJ brelll1
Implant luilS in Jun. 1992. ludge Poinler hQ3 supervil~d discovery IhlC hA$ Included
appro~lmlllly 2'2$ depositions and production of some 10 million P'les ot documenu and h.u
presided over comple;( and len~lhy procoedinss 10 approve and implemenl the II10b.1 Ifnlemllnl
.lnce splln. 1994.
The Committe. ~her Ulel'U lhal che Deblor's pltenl corporlcion.. Dow ChemicoJ and
Cornlnll Inc. ar. merely tryinS 10 ride lhe CO'I tails o( the Oeblor'. bankruplcy proceedu,lll In
order Co benerl1 (rom the Debtor's prllleclion under the bankruplCY laws
The Issues before Ihe COUrI are: I) ....hcthdr il has jurisdiction to transl',r the claims
involving the Deblor; 2) i( the Court does have jurisdiction CIl transfer the cllims, whether tho
Coun should absll1in from e;(crcisinll ils authoriry: JtId 3} whether II hu jurisdiction ovcr the
claim. 3sainsl the Shareholders.
rr. A:'oiAL YSrs:
A. !'Vl1ether ~his Court has the jUrISdiction lnd 3111horitv 10 tr:ll1s(er lhe cases
to the r:.D. or' Michil!ilI\ aursuonl to 28 IJ S C. ~ I 37lb)15\.
[lis undisputed chat tile Debtor's banl<ruptcy c3.te is pending before tile Bi1.nXruptcy Court.
ot'the Vniced States District Court, EllSlem Disrrlct of Michigar\. This COWt has odllnlll :1lld
.~clusiv. jurisdiction o( the Debtor's litle II lcelon pUrSUill11 to 23 U.S C, ~ 131'H~). 23 US.C.
~ t 57(b)(5) provides rIIul this Disrrlct Court has tho authomy co determine the cri.1 venue of lny
personlllnjury lort claims Involvln. the Deblor:
(5) The disutCI ~ou~ shall order thdl personal inJWl' tOrt
and wron,ful d.alll .;ll1lms shall be med in the dlsmer COUrT in
which the blllkr'JplCY case is pending. or in ehe district ';Ilun in Ih.
s
II
"~.l.i"l~ !II.iN L.': 11 f'.U 11-1 Il~ 111111
I~II'I~
district in wnlch rho claim J/Olt, 0.$ delermined by che dlsrrlct coun
in wltich lbe banJcruptcy CGJe is pondlng.
Personal injury and WTong~.d deach claimants are spocir1cally subject to the QverarctUnll
I
bl1l1kruptcy policy of cencralizlng ma~u cOr! !ltlgarlon so chor cho clnlmanra' jury crial nihil an
pruorved. Lll.IIienk~p v. CUID, 499 U.S. 42 (1990). SecLlon" 7(b)(5) trell!4 polrlol\.lllnJury
claims as & special class will\in che rulm of bankIlJplCY 1.1w. Calumet Nat" ~~ v. L~vin~. 179
B.P., 117, 120 (N.p. Ind. 199$). This section confers onlugocl POWerI upon Iha district court
where the bllllkruplcy action W84 med LO fix venul! of parsonal i/1jury cla.lms e,wn,UJ v.
fJlrtltld .~ircrafl Com. 981 F.2d 82~, 832 (~eh elr. 1993), Wt denied. IIJ S.er. 29tH (1993).
The district court where che bl1l1krupccy acelon was t1Iod has che sole auchority (or ultimately
Ilxlns lhe l1'ial venue for personal injury aClIons asainst che banl<11Jprcy debtor. Ca1IUJ'lU. 179
B.p-.alm.
B. If enls Court docs have iunsdicLion. wqeeher Ihis Court has chI! authority
(0 trUlsfer certain oor-OUI claims frl'lm lh. ~,rDL canol. CGJe Nq, 926 and
MDl Jud~o In lbe N D. or Alllbam.110 eh. E.D. of Michlllill.
The Tort Claimants arau. lhat ehe MDL Panel's previous order preemptS chis Court's
authority co lranst'~r certain ope-ollt claims from the ~(Dl PUle\. C.ue No 926 (a this COUrt
Olher responses and objections flied with this Court hl1~e also argued that chis COllrt hll4 no
auchoril)' to rra.nsfer cGJes from ocher disrrictS Uld that only thOle dislrlct courts have the authority
to transfer C3.Ses. OeMrally, che diserice .;ourt '..here the luic is ~endin!l: ha.s the sole autl1Mry to
transfer a SUil. However, wich regards to a banktuptcy acrion '...h.re personal inJLlrY tort clnims
m Involved,.'the FoUlth Circuit In In re .~ H. Robins C".. rn~ . i8! F.11 9'N (Jth elr. 19~6),
CCr'!. 1.nlld, .! 7\) US. $76 ([ 986), ltlled:
9
~ .
II~.I.I.O~ ~I."~ L.I:~.l F.\.~ """ H~ 11111:
'HELLER. L 1. a 1'-"
~,,~u
... ....S lhc ~pp~lIil1lIS corrcclly ~onlmle (~S U.S.c;. I sccllon I ~ 12.
ehe aur.horiey to rrwfer a suil UIlder lhal SlllUlC rells solely wich
ch. ~ourt in wNch lhe suit is pending .ltId IC provides 00 aUlhoney
whatsoever 10 I dlslJ'lcl court slnina in bi1/lJutJPlcy in one dlmicc
and hAvlna ju.risdlction of rhe banktUplCY 10 rruuter lhc 'Icnue of
a CoUC 3iainSlehe bll\kr1Jpl to 3I1olher disrrict. Section I $7(b)(j),
however, expreuly cont'ers on rhe disrrlce COUll slninl In
bankruplCY ilIld havin, jurisdlcllon or' lhll bankruplCY proctedinll
lhe power 10 tb ehe venue of ony 10rt c... IlainSl the deb lor
pending in olher districts. The pul'Jlos, of this Ian., IlalUle, wu,
1)1 Conlr.uman /(lIJtenrnelr deetat.d, 10 c.nualize the
administration of ch. Utllt IIId 10 eliminal' lhe . multipllciry o(
fOnJfl1s for Ihe adjudication of puts of a bWruplCY CIIJf.' (cit,
omined) ThaI pUI'JlOIt wl'luld be thwaned and the plain 111I1'111'
Ill' section 157(b)($) nullit1ed if the power of th. dlSll'icc court
slninl In baMruPICY \0 ftx the venue for tOrl claims alain.~ I
deblor WIIJ to b. preempeed by rhe provisions of stclion I ~ 12. Wt.
do nOI believe this to hive been the ineention of Conlreu In
enBeelol the two SlalUtu. Section 157(b)(j) wl.:l drifted 10 cov.r
lhe procedure in cOMeclion with a special group of cl.:les. to wil.
clrsonal inlurv fort c1~irt:'.s IllllinSl :1 d,bror in Chapter I!
proc.edinll5 wh.ndV~C ".ndint 4t\d in that COMdcdon the secllon
. is SUDrllllJ. In ~II ocher C3US rdlated 10 the bWruplCY
prOceedings, t\owever, the general SlalUlC (I e., melon l412) would
lovem, This. we think. is lh. proper construction to be iiven th.
IWo ~tatutes. II is a COnSIl'1ICci~n which hQrm~nlzes the /wo
$eclions. Ic ~onform~ to Ihat cstablished Cilllon of slaMory
conscruction thlll '(w]e rr.USl rud the scaluteS (In those insllll.;.a
wi'lert therd is ~y pOSSible ~onrllecl to iive effecl to each If w.
.;on do so while preserving their sens" and purpose,' (cites
omilted) To accepc che appellanrs' inrerpretorion and 10 nllalt the
plain lan.uag. of ~ I 57(b)(') 'would 'Iiolac. the basic "rincipl. Q(
conSlruCClon chat SlaMes should b. relld, if pOSSible, 1.:1 harmonious
C.:'(IS.' (cites omin.d) W.. Iher.fore. have no dlff1culty In nndinl
thAt r.h. district il.{dll"s authority co ti:< venut or personal iniurv tort
actions ~lZ.insr the ddbror f~iscs unqer S I 57(b){!t irre!o4lc:tive ~r
th. di:ltricl in wi'llch such conlro~ersv is :lendlnll. (emphasis
add.d).
1S8 r:.2d at 11)1 L [n the ,....H. Robins C1.54. the CUUrl wenl on 10 Slace that the f1m Ill\d primary
pul'Jlose .;,1' the pr.;,cetdinis is to asc~rtaln whether a fair r,orlinlzlcion of th. d.beor can be
a.;hl.ved. ilL 11 10 I:. This purp.;,se may ....ell b. completely lhw:lrled if the .nerlles or' the
II)
II~ 1.'.'O~ ~I)N l~.l.l n.~ ~.I.IIH lI~jJ
iHE~~ER. ~ ~ ~
filu~~
deblor'. e~ecullve. 3l1d o(f1ceu are inilially Illv.reed by, and the ruoulc~, \,f lh. deblor Ir'
I,
. I diulpaled in. the expenm of Iililllllnll ehe rrial ot' rholJliIl1d. of personal inju~ .uh. In COUll'
IhroullhoUI Ihe 1lll1d .pr.3d OVer on Inc'rminabl. period ~f lime. lsl. No progr... along
estlmAtinllhes. conllnlenl ~laJm' Cilll be mlde until all ~Iajm. and .uilS au cenllaJlzed b.rorG
a ,Inll. torum where all in!frests can b. hUld illld In which lh. inlereslS of 311 clllmanl.S with
on'lnolh., may b. hannonjzed. lsl. 111014. However, itlhould be noted chit A.H. Rob/lIl did
nOI acldre.. I Sllullllln involvlna a biN<ruplcy COUlt, I dlsrrict COUlt sinlnl in blllkruplcy, lIIId
clollm. previously Iran.terred by lhe MOL 10 :ll\orher dlslrict COUlt.
.
Th. ~Ot ho.s itS aUlhorily ce. trilllsfer "civillcllons" (01 pre.lria' proceedinlS und.r 23
u S. C. ~ 141)7, Th. ~IOL hll.S recoaniz...!rhe bln!uUPICY slay 'laiM bllllkrupl .:lef.ndlll1I' before
II and lhose cllims that ha"e been 'Iayed r.main stayed in ch. transferee COUlt of the ,....(1)L. .tu
"
re .~sbesrol Prod. lia. ~it.. 7il F,Supp. .j\j, 421, nOCe 61).P. :-'I.L. 199/). The MOL P.:I/'Iel has
noted lhal rhe lransfme .;oure should coordinare with lhe concemed bankruptcy COUlts. 771
F.Supp. Ql..~ I. n. 6, In ~I Ace~ Oil Co" 980 F.2d 1150 (Slh Cir, 1992) ~lsC) recolnized Chllche
distrlCI ~our: sillinil in bill'.k:'Jptcy has rhe QUlholllY to th the trial v'nuot under S~clion 1 j7(b)(S)
or 10 ab>>lain (rom che luilS p.nd;n" blfore the ylDL Iran~li:re. coure. Based on these cases. rllis
Court nas Guchorley over lhe COSes before the MOL Chill art the subj,cI of the Debtor's mOllon.
c.
~~ ;~: CC\lft do IS have. :uri~diClj~~~ 'It:"~~~r l~iS ~~~: m~~r ~~II~n (~:
;ll~~all yelv. e~lrClSe III dllCr"t rIal c , r, r S.
$lJ3J(cl.
.
I.
~tfandatorv Ab,u.nclon
A mOlion under lt~tlQn I ji(b)(!), also requires an abllendon illalysis. In re PM
~nlerlC4n COql, 9~O F,2d, 8J9. 844 (2nd elr, t 991). Th. Tort Ciaim4/lrs' brie( .2nd .,Iher
II
, ,
"~. l,'.ll~ ~m; L,\ 11 F\.X ~ ~ld "~l:
1HELLER, L 4 8 ~
Iflll~~
Cloimll1u' ObJeClions iIl1d ruponses hive moved thll chi. COUll abualn under 28 V.S.C,
91334(\~),
Secllon 157(b)(4) proviJes ehac "(nlon-core proceedlnlS under ~ I $7(b)(2)(B) of riel. ZS
[lIquldallon of personal injury tort or ....,.onll\ll death co.sesJ. shallllQ! bll sUbJ,cI co the mll1datory
ab.tenlion provi.ion. ot' Swion IJ34(c)(2)," In r, Pan Am. 950 F.2cl Ot ,,4.5: 28 V,S,C,
f I 57(b)(4). This COUll is e.~empled from mll1dlcory abscenllon under Section 1334(c)(2).
2. Oi,cretionarv Ab.lentlon.
In their respon.es and at oral .\llumene, the Clalmanu' altorneys Utled chat the COIIJ1
Ibltaln from trwferrinl all of the b'reo.st implanl cas,s Involvlnl the Deblor 10 the EUlem
Dfstrlce of ~lichi~an. speci flcally oPPosinlthe Debtor's proposition co h<lld one trial on the issue
of cau.ation for purposes \it' estimation. For the reason. more !\illy Set lorth below, the Co un
will noe absloin iu Jurisdiction pursuant 10 2S U S.C, ~ IJJol(c)(I) ae this lime. The Court \Viii
ollow the Senkruptc>' Court to proceed with the mimatioo process withoul h<lldinil the \ine
causAtion Iml requesled by .he Debror,
Conlrus hlU Indicated that courts should nor be toO quick 10 absrain from e.~ercisini their
cronsl'er pow,rs under 2S U.S.C. ~ 1 57(b)(S). Ln re P3n ,A.m, 9S0 F 2d al 845, Transfer should
be the rule, obSlenllon lhe e~ceplion. {g. l'he Court should weigh ehe adva.ntallCs a.nd
dlsodvan14ges advanced arthe hearing. A.~ Rob,ns. 7SS F.2d ot 1016. F3cw:I enumeroled by
the A.H. Robln~ ClUe, include:
-.. some CUts may be fully prepllted al\d ready for Slllle frial.
. Some cases may require lubs[J,nlial numbefS of local wilne:lses.
Claimanl, may be roc.ivlns critical medicaL physicol or
psychological ~&tt in Q local 01'13 which would have to be hailed
or cran.(ell'ed 10 chmQnd, ..1,11 ot' these foclors ore relevant.
12
. .
)1'.'I~ 1,1: 1.1 FU ZL.I .\l~ II,HZ
II~. I.' 11.1 ..
Ld.. al 1016.
luues of mle law may also sUblllllri'"y ilfff'Clliie re,ull, in individual cue. lllId mual
b. con.ldercd. lsI. The abSlcnrion doclrlne manife51s f,deral rup'CI (or Srare law and policy,
In re P:tII Am, 940 F.2d al 846. Secrion Ill4(c)(I) of the Bankruplcy Codt provides ror
ab.,enllon by the dlstricr COUrt in ,uch inllances:
NOlhlnl In Ihis "clion prevcnLl a dl'lricr Court in rh. inltren of
jUSlice, or in che Inleresl of comil)' wilh Stare courts or resp,cl for
Srare law, from abstalnin. from hearini a pOtllCUlu proceed In.
artsl", u.ndar till, II or lrisinlln or relared ro a cue under 1111.
II.
28 U.S.C, ~ 1334(c)(I). In In r. p:\n .-\01, Ihe Court addreued cwo dtci,ioIU by ch. dlstricl court
Involvln, hs ab.tanlion from certain cues. In fe Pan AIl1 Involved liie Lockerbl. air crll.th
Ira,edy. The MOL panel had enrered an order Ir&IUferrin, all the federal CUts to che Ell.tltm
Dlsrrlct of New York. The fJ.lL....'\m det'endanlJ subsequenrly flied I'OIUllIIl1y pellrio'" for
reoraanlzalion u.nd" Chapter II ot'the Bankruplcy Code. .0\11 aClions aaainst the deblOrs wero
stayed by II U S.c. ~ 362. Shortly ch,ru(:er. Ihe PI111 .0\"1 defendant' moved for 1111 order
pursuanl co 28 U.S.C. ~ I ~7(b)O) rransfmini Ihe FlOrida llale.~ourt acrion,. kllOwn as the
"Coker" and che "RosenJcrQ/U" actions 10 the Souln"n DIIIlICt Court of N~w Y<1rk. wh.re Iii.
bankruplCY proceedlns Wa,s tiled. The E'~n Am d,blors cOnltmplat,d that th. tl'Qll.\lcr II) th.
Southem Dlsrricl of New York would be follow'd by !nother rransr.r to rhe c3Srem Dislrier of
New York whtr. che ~a)(, was peadinS. The Diltricr COUrt in tl\. Southern Disrrlcr of New
York decided to abstain from ,xercislnS the COUrt', tr3ns(er powers in borh ca,u On Jpp',11.
lhe Second Circuit reversed the dlmiel court's d'~lsion u to the C()~er d.cislo" becJu$' (he
dlslrlcr coun's 3crions were bas.d on improper consider:lllons. The Second Cireui! held Ihac the
I j
II
" "U.L.'.ll~ "fiN 1,\:1.\ FU...~.\.\j~ "Ilj~
iHE~~ER. ~ ,\ n
Coker aCllon Involved red'r~l law queslions, which could noe be a bul, (or abseenelon, Th.
Second Circuit, however, aft1nned che dlslricl court's rJecision wilh r.suds 10 Ihe Rosenkrana
Slare.court scclon becaule rhe Callrl found Ihst rhe rwO.iC'p cramrer plan \Yould engender l\uther
dalay and expense. The debtors In Ihe In re Pan Am cue did noe seek ((Msf,r of th. cues
alrudy before ehe MOL 10 ch, dislrict court where Ihe banJc.r\lplCY Willi p.nding.
Th. iuue orablc.nllon in relation 10 che MPL arolCln In re AD'~ 011 CO.. lYm.. There,
Ihe Court affirmed ch. diStrict caliri's decision to abslain while Ih. ~l.imarlls' lawsuits proc:,edacJ
In Ih. mullldlsrr!cttranllcre. COllrt. The debtors In OW had /lied Chapter I t ba.rJ<roplcy in the
Easlem District nf Mlllouri. ACling tlnder Ihe aurJ10rlty on3 V.S.C. ~ I 334(c)(I), the disUicl
coun abstained from Irying rh. claims. reasoning chaclhe MDL had Iransferred Ihe clai.nu co th.
Eastem Dimict of P.Msylvanla. Thll bankropccy lIay wa$ lifted so Ihat Ih. ~Iaimanl.t could
pursue cheir claims in the Ea~tecn Disrdcl ot' PeMsylvania. In~, th., appellancs clwmed thai
lhe MOL had aUlhority IQ rrwsl'er "lawsuirs" only, but nOI bankrupccy cl~ims, ;uid thaI the dl~cnct
court's conclusion that their "~Iaims" had been lranltcrred '.IIU flawed. Reviewing that decision,
lhe Eillhth Circuit found lhalche distinction between lawlulls ilt1d claims does not negate the f~ct
rhat rhe diStti~t court had th, slaMOry authomy to abstaIn while che claimants' lawsuits
ploce.ded in the mulridlslrict trwferee court. The C~urt ....rolf. "(.jllen chough the 'claims'
themselves may not have been transferred, we are not convinced that the dillriCt court should
cheret'ore b. obliged to conducc duplicalive proceedings In ~1I11oun, thus squalldcrtnli the '1CI";
economies wh.ich are the pur;:ose of the multidlsuicc trwsfer." 930 F 2d at II n rhe District
Court's order requiring ~II claimilt1U to proceed swalnst th., d.bton in the ~lDL court in
PeM:lyl'/llnia was also alnrmed, ehe Eillhch CirCUit :easoning thaI II served ~h. sam. p~os. u
l~
"
1ilI1I,~1I
J &
HuN U: U ,.,.~ :U .IH ,,~j:
lit. ori,lnal order "qulrin, mulll~lflricI cOl/rdinallon 01' the other re/al.d CiIM..
Th. relacl<Jn'hJp b.rwun .ecrlon. '$7(b)(j) and I JJ4(~)( I). lhe nbll.nclon liAnne, Will
4ddr....d by the SIxth Circuil in In r. %il. ,'v'OIQ( W,J, 761 F.2d 270 (6rh eir. 19'$). TIle
,
Sl.~th Clrcuil lIar.d rh.1 in liquld.rln, lorl ~UU In banlcnipccy, m. dl,/icl COWl ,ltould tlUI
,
d.clde wlt.rlt'r ro leave lhe cues Iwhh Claim. in elt. banJczuprcy COWl in th. COUtU wlt.re rlt.y
ara pendln,. If ehe COUrt decldel I,alnll rltl. cour... lit. dllllicc C:OIllt mUll th.n Ir/ lit. ~....
11I.lf or 'end !hem 10 ch. fed,ral coun for ch. dillr!crln which rh.y 110... 1A. 41 273, In ~
I
MR.sllr. a contlrmed pll/l of reor,anlurlon had alreedy been esrabU.h.d end only Uquldlllon l)(
do.ml,u wa. needed. The Sixrh <llrcu'l .1nalYli. is inSlNceiv. in !he 11\I1IIJ11 ~as" even rhouRh
ch. '"imacion process hIU nor be,un.
The Oebror conlond. char Ih, eslimaeion process would b. more a~cUtIl' If a c4W111rlon
lrialwa. held flrsr. Clalmanu orr.r thar lhe ulimatlon process ~ould be ac~omplished wilhJl\ ~O
days. They argue rhar ch. ellimaeion process ~ilI1 be luided by Ihe ourcome of several 4cl\lal
rrial. already h.ld os \Veil as rho number and ~a/ue ~f ClUes previou.ly "nled wi!h .Ihe Oebeor.
Th. Cta/manlS t'urther assm char valuation ot' lhe various IYIl'S or' casu by (jisu.es and injuries
already e;(lllS os & resule of the Global S.nl~menr :n Ihe brea.sllmplanl c;ues. On. cAUlQrion Irial
/I nOI needed for Ih. estimarion process whar. informarion alrudy e;(isr.s 10 accompli.h Ih.
estim.rion process. Th. esrimalion siould procud before erial.
Al oral araumenl. Ihe O(f1cial Comminee ~f Unse~urcd Credlrors. 3rluinl in fayor or" ch.
rrOl1u'.r of all brea.sl implane Cales so rhat onOl causalion trial ~ilI1 b. held ror che purpose 0'.
.'
mlmalion. Addressed tour cues (or Ihe Court 10 use JS a guide f~r Ihis Ilroposilion. Cired ,1& .1
modal for rh. CQullllon Irial is In re !!fndlclIn t.lrill3lill[], 3$7 F~.t 290 (61h Clr 1933). ttt!.
I j
" 1I~.l"'II~ 1I111~l~;1I'.\.~'p.ll~IIPl:
.'Ht:LLt:R. L ,~ "
1ttoWI, 488 U.S. 1006 (19'9). In chme ~3Ie, llIe SI~!h CirculI .mnned llIe dlfOicl COlll\',
erlftJrc.clon of the luu.. LnvolvLna a pro<lucts Iiabillry aClion. A1lhouah rJI. Slxeh Circulc
arnrm~d !h. decision co hold one crial on rJI. cau~4110n only, the B.nqlcrLD ClISe did noelnvolv.
a ban.k.NplCY cralm 3l\d the '''(marlon of ~ertain unliquid.ted. conlin..ne clmiln. from personw
injury eOrt cltims.
I\. second C&.l. ciled in IUpport of ch. Dcblor's posicion Is In re Druel Burnham t.ambar.s
Oroll9_ rnc.. 960 F,2d 285 (2nd Clr, (992). In chae c.... ehe dlscrlce COUll .pproved I senl.m.nt
Illrcem.ne involvinll tIl. deblor and a mandltory non-ope.oue clus of clalmanlS. However, Iher.
WIU no luue of one c,ullllon rrl.l for the purpose of estimllion In thae cue. Th. Oru'l CQU
Invol\'cd a ,,"Iemene alrcem.nt pendinl conl1rrnalion or the d.blor's reoraaniudon plan. .-\
causalion mal WIU nor involved in order to Ulimale the unliquidlled IIlId cOllllna.ne claims In !hae
cu.. Ie should also b. nored (harlh. Qr.s.ul case 1I0es noe involve personal Injury or Wron,ful
duth claims.
Th. (hird case is ~IU Corn. v. Edward$, 11$ S.Cc. IJ9J, 1493-1499 (199'). The
CelolC~ case only addresses che issue of wh.cher or noe che e~eculion of 11 supersedeu bond blU.d
on 11 jud.mine in oni discrlcc COurt is telatea co lhi debeor's bankruplcy p.ndinll in 1lI0lhcr
dimicr coun. The c.ue did not involve the Issue of a c311soeion trial held for the purpose of
iSrim.don.
The A.H. ~obins, lImtL is cired U the fourth case in t~vor of the troUl~fer of c..... 3l\d
one ~aus.tton/rr!.1 for the purposes of "llmation. In .-\.H. Robin" th. Coun nored chal Ih.
bGnkrupecy court is Mt relieved of ics dury in a Chapeer II proceedlna to utimale those
.:onetnallne claims d..pite S.ction t .s7(b)(') i1IId before .1 trlol is commenced. ill ll'.~<I sr 101:'
16
,. 'I FIt 'U .IH IlSI:
~1.I1'/ I.,.. ..,
Th. Third Clrcullllared:
(
Seclion I S7(b)(2)(B) e~c.plS from the (/el1nllloll oJ' 'Cor.
proceedln,.. por'on.1 Ion cl~lm, a,.in'l Ih. d.blor. Th.
btnkruplcy COUrt " WllhOUI .ulhoJricy under lh, Act over 'rho
Ifquidi1ljon or '"imalion ot' conllnlenl Qr W1l1quldll.d P'flonaJ
injury or wrongful doath claim. 3sa;n" th. ural. for PIUpOI4. or
dfllribulion und.r Till. II' 28 U,S.C. ~ I.S7(b)(2)(B). (!rallc.
added) rl will b, observed. how.v.r, thaI th. I.IM. d'ni.,
IUlhoricy ro th. bllllcn.iplcy COUrt 10 '''llmalo' conlin,.nl claim.
only If rh. purposo i. to mako I 'dlllribudon' of lh. .....1. of lh.
d.blor: me Illrure doCl nOI In expr... term. d.ny 10 th. banJcruplcy
COUlt th. lumoricy, or r'lI.v. ir of the ducy, 10 '''lImll.- Ih.
concin,.nl 'p'r'llnl/ injury' claims fQr purposes of d.lenninln. the
r....,billcy of 1 reor,aniulion. And .uch h... been th. conlll\ledon
or Ihe Illrule which h"',been adopted by th. COUlt. which hIve had
to face the juue, the. two leodin, CII.Ses bIllnl proc.edln,. 31i,In,
OUI of l/1e ..,bCSIOS lililllion. (eires omllted) 80lh of Ihese ClUe,
hold thaI c~lim02llon. of rhe deblors' porenri.' pel son a I injury IOrl
/llbilhies u an incident of lhe developmenl Q( I plan o(
1,0rlaniUlion ill. core prOcClIdlnlS wilhin lh. bankruplcy COUlt'S
jurisdiclion and Ch021 'uch mlmalions are nOI (oreclosed by S.elion
IH(b)(S) o( the .00CI. ((oOtnol.omifled)
713 F.2d al 1012 ('mphuis added). Conlrllly to rhe proponents o( th. Debtor's mOllon to
This i, nOI to say rhe personel claimll1llS in this proceedinl
will nOI be 1Ilrimlllely fnlieled, if tllf)' fleer co do so. co h02ve ~ jury
Irfal of lheir claim in (he dislricl ~ourr. S.ction 1,7(b)(S) gives
lhem thaI dgllt. But, fven though che 10rt clailnlnts may be
~nlitled ~o Iheir jury Irials. lh. ba~rupccy ~ourl i~ :~; r'~~~~:: ~
irS dulY In .1 Chaoler II crOcetdl/li 10 e!llmalf 'll ,; I ;
..wau The real queslion thus aris,es JS 10 which prOce~d;lIls t.2ku
pre(:adence, whelher lh. ,sfimalion by rhe oankruprcy coun of th.
claims or Iha jury trills in lh. dismcr coun o( lhe claim.. Th.
Ourhoriti.. which "av. consid".d chis queStIon in cOM.crion willi
a compllcaled producls l'lIbllicy SillJaeion luch .., Ihi. Ill. 311
unanlmou.. ~:::~maliOn! o(th. ootenlia! ~:r~ ~~~~~n~ ~:~~! b:t
lh. banknJelcv cOun! should orc~adf ~~~ lr I
Irans(er ond la hold 3 one CQUS~lIon tria' e'or purposes oe' CSllm'lion, the A.H RObin. c.u lcar,s
IhAI Ih. cslimaeion process should OCCur tirst before any (ri02ls are "eld. The,~ H. RObiRJ COll"
11
H
, ,
"~l.'.Il.\ 1\11,\ L.\IZ ..IX :1.\ Il~ "Ill')
""""
~HELLE~. L ~ B
('I
approved che dlroicl COUl1'S "rentacive" order thins the venue in tilt dlstricl courl sinln, in
bMkroplCY (or all th\\se claims. This Court tlnds rhe lansuase in .ol"f:j rWjLaJ does nOI foreelo..
lhis C()urt from orderini one or mere causalion erlals 10 lake place prior to the ~oncluslen o( the
"cimadon procm should the utimation proceu slall or I f there is a need ro 1m the accuracy of
lhe ulimallon. Upon requesl of lhe Debtor, Claimancs .mellor tile Banl<ruPlcy Court l/t.I. COIIrt
would encertaln a subsequenc morion tOl a.ssi5t che cstimadon process by holdlnS orie or ,.veral
lri.als. However, the estimation proces~ mUSI move forward 11m.
,
The Third Circuil Court furtheri nOled thac having the 'Slimelion firsl before lh, criels
would benelll al1lhe claimancs:
." [f che claimants 1$ a whole 3rt to rullze rell50nable
~ompensalion for their cleims, il is Obviously In tile Inl.rest 01' the
cllUs of claimants a.s a whole to obvrare the flem.ndous expense of
1r)'lnglhese cases separately. rf the banJr.ruptcy court could arrive
at a fair eStimalion of th. value oi all the daims QIld submit 01 falr
,.
plan of reorianlucion 6a.sed on such mlmallon, Wlch some
mechanism for dispute resolution and acceptabl. to all inlerllled
parties. ireal ben.tlt to al~ the claimilJ1cs could be achiewd and the
e~cessiv. e~pense of innumerable lrials, s!rerchlng Over ilIl
inlmnino1ble time. could be avoided. (foornOt. omill~d) ",
(n:! A.H. Robins, 738 F.ld 311013. In remlltLding the mailer t'or further notice ,\lid ht~inll, the
A,!1. RO!ililJ court was mindful of the lmportQllce in balQncinllth~ advantages 8lId disadvillllalle~
of haVing rhe fllal in one district eourt or leaving the cil.\e Qt the IUlr. le\',1. 788 r.ld Qt 101,1,
1016. This Court is mindful that one or more caulltion trialj held durlni the ulimallOn pr<lctll
(or lhe purpose ()f assurtni a more accurate estimation ~.m besl be accomplished If 311 eQ~es
pending against thl! Debtor 3re before one ~OlJrt. lh~ dimict eOlJrt where lh. blll\k.Nplc~ I~
penJlng. Coordination is therefore assured.
18
I .
, ,
~nl' l~; I: FIX :\,1 .IH "tlll
11,1 L.', O~
(
Th. COWl ail"'s W1th che t1ndlnll in A,H. Robil1llh.u ch. Bankruplcy COU" should nr'l
Ulim'l. the WlJlquld4l1d, contjn,tnl corr injury ~/ajms before a Iria' is held. As chq Claimlnlll
'rllue, Ihe mimacion process can be a~compllshed in a ,hort period at lime. The Deblor 11.., ch.
intormalion needed Co villue che unliquidaced tOrt injury claims.
Th. Court notes that borh lh. Deblor and the ClllmantS a,reed dUlin, oral arl\Ull.nl.l ch.
On. clu.aclon trial will not resolve all t!1. issues b.tw.en ch. Debror and rh. ClaimanlS, luu..
Inclullln, indJv'du~ IIlbility, ruplUte of ImplanlS, mechanical cawalion, and dist1rurement would
noc be addr.ss.d it only one causacion crial wert h.ld. Further ni.ls will be n.eded to r..olve
che.e Issu.s.
Pendlnll crial or orher resoluCion, any remol'ed cllims a,.inst rhe Debtor should be subj.ct
co Ih. ,1,101. panel and such claims will be transferred 10 Ihe tvlDl. Judlle for pre.trial purpo...
which should nOI b. inconsist.nc wilh lh. auromalic '11Y of ch. Bankr1JpICY Court cun.ncly in
e(fw .u co rhe claims against (he Debror Dow C~rnlnll. All p8t\ics allree chiC the blUlkruptcy
u;ay .pplies to all claims involving the D.blor. Theretilre. th.re is no need 10 physicnlly transfer
eh. r.cords of alllh. coses involvinllrhe D.bror co this District at rhi, time. The Court also norcs
rhar many of rhe cases involvini the Deblor :ut cumnlly betore Ih. ~,IDL Judge. There is no
n.ed to wur. resources of eh. court sysrem, the D.bcor OIId the Claimants wilh rhe physlc;al
Iransfer ot' allche cas. recorcis involvin. the D.btor either ro this Disll'iCC or ch. MDt cransferee
courr. The Court will rely on the judgmenr of ehe cransferee JUdge to requesr from the transferor
districl clerks or the parties wharever cas. /lies and docker sheers he needs. The Court is also
OW~e (hlr alremarive resolUlion.s 'if mOIl)' of the clOim$ will occur prior to Ihe liq'lidaliorVcrial
ph;ase ot' che Debtor's bankruprcy which would obvlare the need (or physical transfer ot' ehe ~;as.
:9
I I
\. I FI' 'l~ Il~ ...11
L. .1. .".
.,""\
r-"
records ro chis DislJ'ICI for Clial. Seelion I $7(b)(j) dOlls noe mandalo lJ1al al/ CO/1 acrlon. rnU41 be
,
cd.d In dlsrricl cOurt, bur only rho5e which Jt< nOI olherwislT Sfreled. In rll .".1{, hhi.nt 711
F.2d ~r 101 J, n. 17. The COUrt tllrlher notOI char unilaloral dismissal of claims ,ljailUe ... d.bror
und.r Fed.R.Civ.P 011, or ies equivalenl by aare.menl and wich jUdidlll ApprOval. anlsl.'l rnth"
lhan inlerferu wilh soals of Chapler II. Such aCCion. do noe violare lho aUlom.lle lI'y. ChaIt
Manh.nan Bank, N A. v Colo..~ COal.. 8.12 P.Supp. 226, 228 (S.D. N. Y. 1994). Th. ,'-WI.
jUda' may enror such ord.rs coruiseenl wirh this Court's opinion .II1d ordllr.
The Court's decision thaI che ulimalion proc.n .hould proued wilhoUI physlcl\Jly
cransfClrina rh. c:ue rillS for OM caUsal/on rrial does nOI divesr chis Court of anainal .lI1d
o~clusi\le jurisdiceion o\ler the bankruprcy JClion pursuanr ro 28 V.S.C. ~ l3301(a). Shuul.J the
BankruplCY Court need mou informacion for mimal/on PwpOSIS or flach tho /lqu/dacion ph1.111,
the Coun may again consid.r tho issue of on. or more causal/on rri~ls Il1oul.1 any parey 10 the
bankruplCY acrion requesl the Court to do so.
o.
"'-''h.rher the Claims, aQ:~n~r ~"s\~~:;mical ('odDlU:.lW1JDiJJu:.
should also be Irilllstel'T 0 r I and \.'!b.l!JbJUJUs.l.Ji.lJun.uL.
"relared ro" c1\o Debror's bankr~o~~.Y:oroceedia&t.
The Court has jurisdiction under 28 U S.C. ~ I JH(b) to "all CIvil prrJceedinlls .. relllllt!
to C3iies under rille 11." "Related l\l" juriSdiction in~IlJd., 'ction, Involvln, non.<.!ebr<lrs lhal
could "conceivably" have an affect on tile Debror's bonkrtlprcy c:ue. P~Q[...ln.l: v .WlliiDJ, 7J)
F.2d ~84, 994 (3rd Cir. 1984); BQbiMon.Lldi~hiQ;lJl Clns,,' Gas l'.;il1JJs", ?IS F 2d lit). .18).
584 (6rh Cir. (990). fn a recent Supreme CQun ClSe. the Court a<Jdruse<J thl "relalld ro"
..
jurisdiction ofth. Court:
Con~ress did nor dlline3re Ine scop. or' 'r.l~e'd 10' jurlsdlcrion, bUI
ies choic. of words sUiaUU a irlllll of soml brUdlh. Th.
:0
I ,
. ,
, , "I' I'. II0ll
"ON I~:H .\..... ...
ehll hlv, no riahe co 'njoy <<h. prOl.celons ~rrorded by bUlM/PICY. ^ bankrllplCy /lilli' dOt, nq,
bit o1Il ~clion aaalnse <<he principal o( . d.blor'corpor31Ion. ,"'ariljm. Er.c. Co. v. U()he~ /.r~:r:
a.IIJll.. 9'9 F.2d 1194, 1205 (3d elr. (991). Tho ClaimAllIS t\lr1her ~Sert ll1.1 rll" conrrlbllllon
claim by Ih. ShatehQlders aialnsl the Debtor is rheorelic~1 .1e rhis 11m.. In fuRt, ~ rh.
CoUlth.ld Ihal the aCllons aauinsl ll1. non.deblor would have no el1,cl on Ih. d.bror's
banlclupccy fIlare AIld Ihere(or. is nOI "relac,d ro" banJc.ruPICY wiehin rh. m.lIllnll of seerlon
1471(b).' 743 F.ld al 995. The ThIrd CirculI Stalld:
... At b.se, ie Is a mer. prfcursor 10 <<he poI,nlial<<hlrd party claim
for indemnillcallon by Plcor a.~nsl Manvill,. Yellh. OUICOme of
lh. liinins'Plcor acelon would in no way bind Manville, in rha, it
could nOI del,nnin. Illy rlihls, liabilleilS, or course of Icdon of Ih.
d.blor. Since MlIlvUI. is Ml a p,ny 10 the Hilllins.Pacor acclon.
ie could nOI b. bOUlld by res Judicala or colfacera' eSlOpp.1. (cites
omilt.d) Even if lh. Hilllll.l.Pacor dispuc. is resolv.d in favor of
Hillins (lhereby keepin, open Ih. pOSSibility of a rhlrd pany
claim), Mll/Ivllf. would scill be .tble co relldaa" any luu., or adopl
any position. in response 10 a subsequenl claim by Pacor. Thu.s,
rhe bankruplcy CSlall could nOI b, affected in My way uncil rh.
Pacor.Manvill. third pany ',tclion is accualfy brouihc and (rled.
lsI.. II 99'. The Thir4 Circuit w,ne on 10 mr. char wilhouc ~ jud!lm.1\l agoinsl the non.d.blor.
chltre could never be ,J rhird Pltly ind'mnili~a/ion ~Ioim ~ilinsl yrlnvillc. l.d. The CI.1imllllrs
a.s"rt chal a separare proceedina Ull4er II U.S,C. ~ 502 mUSI bot brouShl before rh. Sll\kruprcy
CI)Urt if ~ JUd,menl is r.nd,red asainsl rh. Shat,holders.
Claimanrs scar. ChOl if the real concern or che Sharehol4crs Is th. faCI thae a c.rtain
insuranc. policy or PQlicies at. co.l)wned by the Deblor and Dow Chemical. ll1en rhal issue
shoul4 be broUllhe ro ch, SanJc:upICY Court PutSUll/l1 to In eh, MOlt.! of Vitek. rnc. 51 F 3d 5J(l
..
I Seecion 1471 is now 2S t:.S.C. f 1334.
..
..
lJ
.
1I~.I.;.'U )IIIN 1.\: H FIX 11.\ 'l~ ",II:
iHELLi:R. ~.~ a
r-.
(Slh Clr, 199j). The Fifth Circuil in !hal ~lUe reversed the <.lIstric! coun .wJ atllrmed lhc
bWW\JpICY court's approval or certain selllements. t1ndinK that lhc bankruptcy coun had
jurisdiceion over liability insurance policies where the debeor W,\,S J ,Q.insuw1 ....ith ..:uher panie~.
The Fifth Clrcuil noted thaI a bankruptcy UUle Includes a deblor's interesl in liability in~lJ1a.nce
under II U.S.C. fW(a)(I). In the ~'a"er of Vilek, 51 F.Jd al m,
In the Inslane ClUe, .u In fK2L there will b. no condnllenl claim by lhe Shlteholdcrs
Gllalnsl lhe debtor for indemnil1cation unlil such time JS a judgmenl Is rendfred and, then, tho:
non-debtors would still have to proceed wilh an entirely separate proceedinll in order 10 obl.1in
Indemnit1cation (rom the Debtor WIder II US.C, ~ 502, loil\llortfe:uors aid nOllndispensabl1:
panies in the federal (arum. Lvnch 'I, lohns.Manville Sales COI'p, 710 F.2d 11901. 1198 (6th CII.
1983). The Bankruptcy (orum provides for a mechanism eo ruolve the Deblor's liability ror
indemnificalion should a Judgmenl be rendered against the Shareholders.
The insurance issue raised by the Shareholders IS WIder lhe Jurisdiction of the B~ptcy
C.)urt pursUllllt co II US.c. ~ ~41, Swion 541 gives the Bankruptcy Court bro~d discr~lion
over the Deblor's inlerest in ~ li~bility insurance policy where the Debtor is 3 co.insured with ~
non-debtor rhird.party. tn the :-'fatter '11' Vitek, 51 r jd ~t S33, Given thaI rhere hu been no
judgment entered against the Shareholders, the Shareholders have no claim pending 311:1insl the
inSutllllce policy 3t this time and there J1e currently no com~tinll inlereSlS involved for che
insurance funds 3.S bel'Netn th~ Debtor ,md itS co.insur~d.
As co tile Shareholders' J111ument that judici~1 ~c~nomy \Yould "esl be served ii the cues
Ggolnsl chem were jOined with the cases against the Debtor. rhe ~ ~ourt h4s sl4ted that
"JudiCial economy Itself does nOI justify (edml Jurisdiction." ~, 7~J F.:d 31 994. ThiS COUll
13
I,
"
",. LJ 1M
Mt'I~ 1.1: U F\.\ llol .IH 'Hill
. . .
tlnd, thaI Judicial econOIllY 1I.I0ne do" nOI ju.lily (hi. Court utrei.i.na Juri,dictlon 0'1" lhe r;lon.
banlu'uplCY acelonl Involvlna the Shueholders, The clalm. lnvolvlna the Shlt.holders ~. not
relaled to ch. bankruprl/y letion before the Court, The Court h.. no jurl'diction Over rho..
claim. pur.uane fO 28 U.S.C, f I 334(b).
E. Malian. 1l/14 Pro~osed Ord,r. Oill1)lssinl! tt1. Deblor and/or R.mandlQJI
Crlynl involvfn, Dow C~,..",jcaJ and t;omincr. (n2,
VariOll$ ClaimantS In the it re.pon... (0 the Deblor'. moelon fO trwfer &nd durin, OraJ
IIIlumenll indicaee that rhere u. molion. and proposed ord." .eekJnllo dl.mlll or ..vcr the
D.blor and/or remand ch. r.lalm. involvinl Dow Ch.mlcal a.nd Comlnl, rne. e\lll'enuy p8n.1lnl
.
eilher In rhe dl.met court ro which Dow Chemic.1l a.nd Co mini, Inc. removed rhe c.... or b.for.
rh. MOt JUdl.,1 Oiven thi. COurt'. rulina char it has no jurl.dicrion over the cla.i.m. involvinl
the Shareholders, those mollon. and/or orders to dismiu or sever the Debror aad/or remandi.n;
the claims 10 the Slate eOUrl should be address'd by rhe district COUrl in which tho.e claim. 31.
currently pendinl or by JUdie Pointer if rhe (!S, hu bffn transf'rred to th. MDL court.
Furthennore, ct:tims a'.1irul the Sh31eholders currently p.nd!na b.fore a stile court shOuld no
lonaer be removed [0 Ihe U.S. Dlmict Court if the only basi. for removal is under 23 U.S.C.
f 13J4(b).
.
.
,
I The Court nOI.. chat ill fuly $, 199~ Order PrOvisionally Transrcrrln, Certain Srecur
l/TIplant Cas.. co this Court pend!ns a hcarlnl sp.cifically stayed action. involvinlche Dobror,
Dow Coming and did nOI Slay Uly proc.'dinll 1$ co Dow Chtmical or Comins,
24
I l
, ,
,,~. \-t. ~~
, . 'l~ ~l~ .01=
lll.ll" l~: U .\.. .
.......,
Ul. CONCWSIOti,:
Thl' COUll t1nd. It II.. jurisdiction over ~lIrh. Op'.,IUl bre1l.l1 implanl cl4im, a.linn LIl.
Oebtor Dow Comln. pursuant 10 28 !J S.C. ~ 1334(a) and this COUrl do.. nOI .xercls. Irs
dl,cretion 10 ablllln from thi. jurisdlclion. Th. COUl1 also h.. r.he solo aur.honry to n,'( th. crial
venue for any person.llnjury trials in rhll m.lter pur'U4ll110 23 U.S.C. f I $1(1))($). For lh.
PUrpoH of derormlnlnltho trial venue of Ih. br,ullmplanl c.... or l'urthennl the ..lImac/on
proc..., Ih. Court cnnsfers th. cl.lm. a,.lnll r.he D.btor Dow Comln. to thi. Court. Howe"er,
me COUrl will nOI rule on the lrial venue issue, at this time but will milk. thae dOI.rmlllllJon
following Ih. clos. of Ihe e!tim.clon process. PUISUo1I\tlo 23 U.S.C. f 1 $7(b)($), trial will eimer
b. here, in the di.trict COUrt in which Ih. bankruprcy c:lSe i. pendln" or th. dlstricl court In thll
dillricr in which lhe claim arose ~s rhi. COUrt may desisnale. The COUrl f1ncis no pby.fc4J
trllJl.f.r of cue fil" or clUe records to Ihe EUI.m Di.lriCI of Michi,an I. n.cessary al thI. lime
.nd no such Irwfer should b. m.d. unlil/lmher order of thl. COUrt.
:\ny removed cl.ims a.alnsllne Debeor will be subject to rh. MOt panel and such claims
will bl trlllls(.rr.d 10 lh. MOt Judl' for pre.trial purposes only (the $Cltin, \If the trial venue
nolvin. been reserved by rhl' COUrl) iII1d such pre.trial proceedings shall nOI be inconslllent with
rhe llulomaric Sl&y of rho Bankruplcy CoUrt wh.ich is currenlly in e(fecl as to th. claims a,.lnse
the Debtor Dow Com.in.. Although PiII1.1 Rule 19(a) requites clerks of th~ [1'4/).f.ror district
courtS to rorwud to the clerk of rhe ttill1sferee distf\CI court tne c\lmplere orl,inall1!. and docl<'l
sheer for tlCh l1'lnIferred action. bec3use of rhe voluminou. l1Ies. rh. crllllsferee ~lDL JUd,e wHl
determine whar.ver case rile. .11111 docket sheets he needs t'rom the Irlll1sferor dislnct clerks.
The BlnJ<rlJptcy Court should proceed ',\Iilh ilS mimation process rellidinl thes. .:Iaiml.
2'
~ ~
,,~ I"~~
~l.Itj L.~.j,~ '\.~' '.\l~ "~I:
iHI~~IR. LA' ,...,
I
How.v." I uU'ltloo Irl.1 II thJ. Sill' o( th. pro~otdlnl' I, nOI o.~tII..lY. Th. COUlI4C1t. nOI
(ollclo" I" dl'~r'llon or authorlry to hold such. crial or lrill, II o1J\y polnl In th. ...Imallon
ptO~us (or the purpOIt of L'unherlnl or t.:lsisliollh. proc.ss should il b. ~aJl.d upon 10 do '0.
Sueh mollons .hould b. addr.ssed 10 lhis Court.
Th. COU" nnds II has no juri.dicllon over Ih. cltJm. 'Illnll Ih. non.d.blotl Cow
Ch.mlcal II\d Comln" Inc. Ind d.nln lh. O.blor'. mollon 10 lIan.r.r Ih... clllm., Claim.
1,Iinll Ih. non.d.blOrs shall be remand.d 10 1111' court. If eh. only basi. fOt r.movaj I. !h.
Coun's "r.I.I.d eo" jurildl~elon. The Oeblor Oow COmln, .hall b. dl.m1ssecl or may be ",veted
ftom the ~Itlms aatinsl it ill1d olher non.deblor defendanc.s In .ccordlllce with Ih.i. opWon and
~lQimancs shall b. allowed 10 proceed as seh.dul.d s,ainSI the non.deblors. Cralm. a,wllt !he
D.blor continue 10 be se.yed purSUlI\t 10 lh. aUlom.elc Slay o( the Bankruptcy Court.
,"ccordlnaly,
IT [S ORDERED Ihalth. Cllurt hu Jurisdiction over .lIlh. Opl'OUI breast implanl cllllms
Illalnll the Oeblor Dow Corn in, purslWll 10 23 US.C. ~ 13)4(&) and is nOI ';(oIrclsln, irs
discrclion 10 .bslain (rom Ihi, jurisdiction;
IT [S FUR.THER ORDERED thac the Court has Ihe 101. aUlhorllY eo Ilx the tti.1 venue
(or aoy persooal injury trills In Ihis m.lt.r pursuant 10 28 U.S,C. ~ I "(b)m IInd Ih. COUI'!
ORAi'lTS Ih. O.blor's mOlioo 10 Irans(,r Ih, Opl.QUI breUI Implanl .:a.ses (or Ihe purpOStS of
serein, eh. trial venue o( the claims a,ainll the Deblor or t\mhl/int the estimalion pro.:ess I c'
.
necessary. Th. COurt will delermio. (ollow!n, the close o( the esrimallon process, wh.th.r the
trial v.nuol 01' the persooal injury Ion claims. will b. .ilh" in this Court. the disl1l~l court in
16
QI"I:
I ~
II~, Lt. U
.
ltn,~ l.:l~ FU :1$
~'\
'WE~~ER, ~ III .
f"',
which !he bllllcruplcy c.... I, pend'n" or In Ih. dlalllcr coun in !hit dlffliC:l In which IfI. c:I.,,"
lito.. pUnUI/Jlro 28 U.S.C. ~ I j7(b)(j):
I
IT IS FURr!1ER ORDERED !h.l any r.mollea claim, a,.inl/ rh. Debror will be lubjecr
Co !he ,'vIOL panel and ,uch claim, will be lran,t"lTed co rhe MOL JUd,e for pre.rrlal purpOIt.
only (Ihe lertfnl of rhe rrial venue hlvinl be.n r".......d by lhi. Court) IIId 'uch pr'.lrf.1
proctlalnl' ,ha" nor b, lnco""'lfnr wirh rhe aUlomaclc lIay of rh. 8111Jcn,prcy Court which I,
currenlly in .Uecr u ro rhe c:l"m, ',,'n'llhe Oeblor Dow Comlnl. ^'!houah Pan" Rul. 19(.)
r.qult.. cleric, o( !he trtNreror dll/ricI conn, 10 forward 10 !he cl.rlc or !h. Iflll'("'e dl,ll'ICI
court th. complele orialnll /1/. ano docker Iheel fOt each Irwferred 3ctlon. b.cau~. or rhtr
Vo/uminoul 01", Ih. Ir.uu(me MOL jUd,e will dflermin. Whllfll.r cu, m.. and doclcfr ,1I.ell
h. n.ecll from Ih. Iran,retor al,lricI cl.rk,;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED thaI no phYlic,'rnn".r of ca,. fiI" or cu, record. 10 Ih,
elllfm Oi'lrlcl of Mlcililln ,hould talce place 31rhi, lim. nor unril funher ord.r of chi. Coure:
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED lhlllhe million of the Debtor Oow Cornina ro tran.f., the
brlall implanl cu.. for the purpose of hold in. One clu.arion tn31 prior 10 the urimllion process
i. DENIED wirhoul prejudice Irfhla lime. che COUrt restrvln, i,. aUlhOricy to hol<l 'uel, a frial
or /(ill. eo /'unher lh. e((ortJ o( rhe ell/mlfion process:
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Ihel!h. SanJcrupley COUrI should proceed '.Iiirh an '"imAlion
PtO~"s required by II U.S.C. f S02(c);
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED rhlr the Debror's mOIlOn fO rrwl'.r Ih. braillr implull
Claim. a,ein,t' eh. non'debrors Oow Chemical and Curnln" rnc. co lh. EilIl.m Oi.lricr .,f
Mich/11Il i. her'by DENIED:
21
~,
.
\-1
"'.I"ll~ ~fI,~ l.l.N F\.\ n.l H~ "~l~
$HELLER .
(""\
IT IS FURTHER ORDEIU!O thai molion. I1I\d prQPoud orders .eokln, 10 di'rnJ" or
..v.r tht D.blor (rom claim. a~'Lnsl olJler brCllSl implillll de(endlln~ pendln, in .ither 'UUe
CQW1, or In f.deral dl.ll'ict COurt.l should be ORANTED lUld 3Jll)rder $houJd be enlered by rho.a
ra.pacllve COUlU Ln Ilccordanca with chi. opinion ,w.i order;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED thlll lJIe cl.im. i,ain.1 the non-deblors Dow Chemical and
Comlnl. Inc, which have ~en remov.d to ted.,al di.llh:1 court.l.hall b. REMANDED 10 l.h.
re.pecllve .l.Ile couna it l.h. only bul. tor removal i.s 2S U.S.C. ff 1334(b) or 1367(1);
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED \1111 the ClalRl' I,aln'llha D.blnr Dow Coraln, conlUlu,
10 be .tayed pursuant co che aUtomali~ Slay I)( the Banltr1JplCY COW1 unlil further order ot l.h.
BankruplCY Coun;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED lhlC ehe elme (or removal of the opr-oUI breul impllltll
claims pursuanl co BankruplCY Rule 9027(a)(~)(A) 'lIamSl the Deblor Dow COnUnl be ,nJUKed
co 30 days (rom Ihe date ot this Order or the Deblor Dow Comin, may remove lhe claim. 30
days al'ler cnrry ot lUl order cerminating the llay pursUo.nl to Bankruplcy Rule 9027(a)(2)(8);
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED thaI che MOL Jud.. may eneer orders to remlUld, co dismiss
3lId co sevcr any claims a,sinsl non-deblOrs. includina che Sharcholders. in accordance wil.l\ thIS
OpinJon and Order.
.'
,
PACE HOO
Sll'" DISl1tCl lud.c
OATEO: ~
2$
l l
11I1.l.'O~ ltl.11i 1~:H'.I.t ll~ .IU 119j~
.. '\
r"
'=
,.,.
lit'"
I,l.,.
-.....
-~' .
~ .,..
-", ,
'"
,.....
..'
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COIJRT
EASTERN DISTRICT Ot' \'1ncJUCAl'l
SOUTHERl'l DfVlSION
-
,....
~
...
~
In R.l
""':1Ilf
'"
!:l
I"",'
..,
DOW CORNING CORPORATION,
;;r
l~
Cm No. 95.CV.71J97.DT
D.btor.
HON. DENTSE PAGE tlOOD
I
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
ON TIlE ~O,'l.DEBTORS' MOTIONS TO TRANSFER
l. [NTRODL'CTIOf',';FACTS:
This malter is before che Court on lh. non.debtors Medlcill Enaln.llMS
I
CllrporlliolVBrislol.Myers Squibb ("~l:EC D~(.ndanls"). MiMesolil Minina and Manufoc:rurinll
CompiUlY OM") IIlld Ba;(cer He~llh~3le C\lrp. snd Baxltr lntemational. Inc:.'s ("BlL'''r
D~f.ndanIS") mocions 10 lr~nsfer bre3.5l implMI coses 10 lhe United SI~les Dislri~l C\lurt, ECLStllim
District ot' Michilillll. Responses were filed 3lld ~ h.3ltnl was held on the maner.
On May 1$. 199$, die Oeblor. Dow Coming Corporation. iOUllhl 3 volunrarl petition for
r.orianlution und.r Chapter II 01' lh. BankruplCy Cod. wilh the Bankruptcy Court of die lJl\llIld
Slar.s District Court. E~lem Diitrict of Michillllll. ~orthem Division in Bay City, bdford Ihn
Honorable Arthur I. Speccor. On Iune l2. 199$. t.he Ollbtor tiled 1 mOlion 10 lrCllls(er cel'tGin
brdQ~t Implant cues bel'ore lh. 30l'lkruplCY Coun. IUd". SpeClor enlered a Delennini1tion ilnd
Report and Recommendali\ln R~allldlns the Oeblor's MOllon 10 Tr:IMf.r on lune IJ. 199'
Inc1icQlinll thi1t t.he OISlllCt CI)Ur1 I1Qd jurisdiction over this morl\ln. The non-debtors. MEC
O",rendanti. 3M. .1lId B~;(ter Defendonls Jlso ftIe-:1 similu motions to transt'er be(ore the
I.
.
~
f'\
(if
'0' Juri.dicelon. W. al'" wllh the vi.w. .:<pr....d by th. Court
o( App..I. for th. Third Circuilln Pacor. ln~. V HI"i~.. 743 F.2d
9... (1984), Ihal 'C~n,rut In..nd.d co ,rllll comprth.n.iv.
Jurit.,tlclton 10 chill be.nJcnjplcy coum .0 thll Ihcy mlllhl dvnl
.mct.nlly 1/ld expcdiciou.ly wlu, 01.11 mancrl cOM.ce,d with the
bankruplcy ..l.1le,' 3Jld ehal tIta 'r.loeed 10' IlIIl\Ioa' of 4 13J.l(b)
mU'1 be rud eo live diltricl coUtU (and banlullplcy COIllU Wld.r
f I :l7(a)) Jurl.dlccion over more rhan Ilmple proceed In,s Involvlnl
the property of the d.bror or rhe e"ace.
'n r. Celolex COIV., II:! S.Ce. 1493,149'.1499 (199$).
In WI. aWu. ehc Court held lhal rh. llCeion. alalNI che non.d.bror \Yould h"ve no
.((ecI on Ih. d.blor's blllkruplCY tilDe. 3nd there tor. art nOI "relar,d to" bo.nkNplCY wilh.ln tit.
m.anina of seccion 14;I(b).' 743 F.2d ae 995. The Third Circuil sllll.d:
.., Al besc, ic is !l m.It prccursor 10 ehe poeenlial third party ~laiRl
for Ind.mnlr1c!lcion by Pocor aa31nsl Mll/lvill.. Yellh, olllcome of
Ihe HllJllins.Pacor !lclion would In no way bind Mlllvilt., in U,1l11
could nlll dee.rmln. Illy rlahes, liabilities. or cours. of DClion of the
deblor. Since Mlll\vill. is nOlO party co lhe Hilllns.Pa.cor aCllon,
II could nOI be bound by res judlcala or collaeer31 esloppel. (cires
omill.d) Evcn If lhe H1Ulns'Pl1cor dlspule I. Itsolved In favor o(
HilliN (thereby keeplna open eh. po.sibility of a rlUrd party
claim), Mll/lville would still be able co rcliclsace any i.sue, or adopl
II/IY posilion, in r..ponse co . subsequenl claim by Plcor. Thus.
the bllJlkropley Ull1ee could nOI be affected In any way Wllil u,e
Pacor.Manvllle third party action is ~cNoJly brouihlllld noied.
l.4. 31 99'. The Third Circuic wenl on to $tlle that wiehout a Judllmenl aa3.inJI rhe non.Jeblor,
tItere could never be a third party Indemnificarlon ell1im IlalnSt Manville. l.4. The S[;(U, CirculI
31so Mccd thallll1Y judament received could nOI ieself ruull in .ven a eonelnacne clDlm !lll1ilUt
the debtor since 11/I enrir'ly separDce procccdlnlil eo obtain Indemnit1cI1tion must t1m be made.
I Section ,.m is now 2S U S.C. ~ 1334.
J
I I
J J
L.'O~
'",
There is no automalic/contractual bills for InderMil1caclon between Ihe non-debtor Me! the
deblor, w..
In Ihe Inslanl CU" 31 in f9s.2L ther. would be no conlinllenl cllim by the non-debton
IIllllinslthe Oeblor for InderMiflc31ion until sucll e1me II a Judlmenl is render.d. Even chen, III.
non-debtors would lIave 10 proceed with llI1 enelrely separare proceedinl In order 10 ObtNII
indemniflcaelon frolTlthe Oeblor before Ilia Banluuptcy Court, There hu bean no allel3110/l lh.l
lhere ts II contractulll or IUlomelle bills for inderMtflcallon between the non-debtors ,Uld the
Deblor. Nor has there been any assertion Ihalthe non.debtors hllva flied lIIlY croas.claim5 laWl.1
tltt Debtor. Even if cross.cl.ims wcri rlled by Ihe non.deblors IIllalnSllhe Debtor, those chums
could be severed and Ihe maner could proceed 3S to the non-debtors.
The non.debtors h3ve mened Ihot Judicial economy should be I concern for the COllrt.
,
The ~ court addreuinll Judicial economy wrote:
On the olhtr hand, the mere factlhat there may bt common
issues of fact bttween a civil proceeding IIlId a conlroveny
involvinl the bankruprcy CSlare does not brlnlthe miller Within the
.cope of section t471(b). Judicial econom~ Itself does not jlLSlity
federal Jurisdiction. (cltas omined) '(J]urlsdlctlon over
nonbanluuptcy controversies with third ponlts who arc olherwise
strlll1llers to Ihe ci vII proceedlnl and \0 the parent blll1krUplCY docs
nOI e:cisl.' (citcs omin.d).
~, 743 F.~d at 994. This Coun nnds thllt judicial .conomy would nOI be alllined hy hAvlnr.
one or more UUSltion crlal on the issue of disease invo1vinllllte non..jebtors becau.se th.re Appoint
10 be ocner I>>ues involved Ihat need to b< ~ried subsequent co the ~Qusation rrial, i.e, mcchllllic~1
cQusation'illld punitive dam.iu. This Court runher nnds that Judlciul eCllnomy nlone docs not
Juslify tlUs Cllurt oblo.ininl jurisdiction o"'<r the non.bllJ\JczlJptcy aClions involvinll the non.
4
l. .\ ,
-.
deblors. The clllm. '80Inl! cho non.debl01s 31. nOI rel~lCd 10 the bWNplcy acllon before rho
Coun ill\d Ihe CIlW1 has no jurisdiction over cholO "alms purSlJiII\r rll 28 U.S.C. ~ I JJ4(b).
B. \Yhelhcr rhe Coun ~osumsl\lpolemonr4.1 Jurisdiction ulldlr
2S U,S,C. ~ I J67(~\.
Th. non.d.blora cll.ln rl Cuvaho91 EauiD. Co(p" 980 F.2d 110 (2d Clr. (992) III ~upporl
lh.lr arlumenl chae lhis COlin poss.,ses supplemenlal Jurisdiction aVlr eho actions alalnll rhe
non.d.blors pursuant to 29 U.S,C. ~ 1)67(.). In th.t cas., the coutt sllted:
The dlslriCt coutt' slur.horiry to ~pprov. Ole $.rcl.mene, wilh
rupect to the enVironmental causu of ateiun, could properly be
r'oullded all Ics supplemental jurlsdktlan. Oiven an Independtne
jurisdiction source like thaI provided by ~ 1334(b), federal courts
POUt$ $upplemenlal jurisdiction over relaled ~Iaims. See 2S
U.S.C.A. f 1J67(o) (Wese Supp. 1992) ("(Tlhe dlS'll'lce courts shall
lIav. supplemental jurlsdiclion over ~II och.r claims chae are ~
reloled IQ clslms ill (an) action within (a COutt's) orisinal
Jurisdiction tllaelhty form p.n of rh. s.me CllS..") In Ole case ~l
hand. the cnvirorun'"tal causes fonn pan of che Sllll1. case witl\ tl\e
b3l\kroptcy clslm~ btcause all of them, resolved in thl stnltmeOl
Q~reemenl. concern the Ilov.mmont's~rcempls to remedy huudous
subslMc, r.leues 3ethe Publick.r sile and they remlln intertWined
in the comp.tlna parties' efforu to securt a sllu. of the procllds
of tho opl1On sale, E'ien wichout ,Ul independent source ot'
jurisdiction over che environmental aellons. ~ l36i(&) thertlrore
VISeed the Southern District with jurlldlclion over th.m 3S related
cl.ims fonnlnll pan of the samt COJ' pending before ie. (ches
omirced)(emphuls added),
I
1lI. ae 115, The Court nol.S that this appe3lS 10 be the only circuit CllSt wllich addresses
S\lpplemenllll Jurisdiction 'Jnder Stlction 1 J67 invo1vini :1 blll\k.ruptcy. In thot Milner ot' Walklr.
~l FJd 56:!. ji2 (5111 Cir 1995). The Flnll Circuit nOled thAt lhe Second Clrcuie "did not rese
on J 1367 ~Ione. noting thaI '(tlhe diStrict did nOI need to rely solely on its suppl.mentol
jurlsdlclhlO to approvl th. $tltlement. becauso addiuonnl :1ulhorlty 31ises t'rom CERCt,-l,' J
5
II
-
JUlisdiccionallltMI. ...'" (cilCl omicted). 51 F.~d ac 572, n. 8. Sfclion 1367 iIlso UICI tJI. o'r,llwd
co" IlllluI.e in order for a court 10 uercisc jllrisdicliol\ over M aClion.
I
Olven lhe facts in the Insealll calO, chis Court Ilnds thBI II do" nOI have IllpplemenellJ
jurisdiction over lhe claims againse the non-deblors. The brea.lt implMI aCllons aalllnsl the non-
deblors all noe "so relaled" co eho bankrUplCY accion lhae "they form pare of lhe lame cue," III
lhe In re <;:uVMo,a cue, Ihe Second Ciecuie fOllnd lhaethe envirorunenltJ CQuses fomlld part of
lhe bllJ\krupecy claims beCIUSf lhou cllims remained "inlenwined in the competlnll pardfs'
ef(orts 10 secure a share of lhe proceeds of lhe option sale." 980 F.2d II 115. Here, lhe non-
debtors have ""I sho....n rhor lhe claims s,ainst rhem Ille so "inlertwin.d" \Vilh the Deblor's
InlereSls in Ihf banJuupecy aClion. The Court I1nds lhat it has no supplemeneal Jurlsdiclion over
Ihe claims Involvina the CIOn.deblors cl1at do nOI involve rhe Debror.
Since this Court has ruled lhal it docs nOI have jurlsdicrion over lhe claims aaainS! the
non-deblors, the Court will nOI address lhe abslention issue in dellil. The COIlll Incorporales by
reference its analysis of ehe abscencion Issue in ilS Memorlltldum Opinion md Order on the
Debeor':! MOlion 10 Transrer.
C. MOlions and ProDosed Orders Dismlssinll the Deblor ilJ1d1or Ren:!!Il!ting.
ClaIms involvinll ehe :-lao-Debtors Currentlv Pendin,.
Varioua ClaimlJtlts in thcar responses co ehe non-deblors' mOlion.s to trMsrer and durinll
oral arguments indicate chal cher~ 31e mOlions ;1J\d proposed orders seekina ro dismiss or sever
lh. Debtor IJtld/or remand Ihe claims involvinIJ cl1e non.deblors currently pending alther in lhe
dimicl court 10 which Ihe non.debrors removed ehe maner or before Ihe Milici Dislrlct titillallon
6
~
I"",
, ,
,.
.
(.,' .
IT IS FURTHER OROEIU!D lhll lh. non.d.blolf II' ENJOINED from r.movln. MY
cl.lm. aa.ln" all 01. non.d.blotl curr.nlly p.ndina b.ror. a Ilare coute 10 rM Vnllod SI.",
Dltlrlcl Coute il Ole only boal. ror "moy.ll. "",d.r 21 V.S.C. f 1334(b) or f 1367(.).
DATED: ..:.s.E.e...1.2.1995 .
PAOE HOOD
lire. DIMel JUda'
(
'I
'I I
.1,'1
"
I.
"
, ..
q I
"
,
':
"
"
..,
'.,
. '
t . J J
.""""\
.-
AND NOW this
I ~JFICATE OF SE~VICE
f I~ I
lL day of j~ ((jiJ ~t\.._., 1996,
I, James R.
Ronoa, Eaquire, hereby oertity that I have thia day served
the foregoing Motion tor Severance and Remand ~y lending a oopy
of the aame United statea Mail, regular mail, poatage prepaid, at
Harri.burg, Pennsylvania, addresaed tOI
'i
National LiaisoQ Co-Counsel for Plaintiffs I
Francia H. Hare, Jr" Eaquire
HARE, WYNN, NEWELL & NEWTON
suite 800, Maasey Building
a90 North 21st street
Birmingham, AL 35203
J. Michael Rediker, Esquire
RITCHIE , REDIKER
312 North 23rd street
Birmingham, AL 3~203
Francia McGovern, Special Master
University of Alabama School of Law
101 Paul Bryant Drive
p, O. Box 870382
Tuecaloo.a, AL 35487
National Liaison Counael tor Defendant..
, ,
, ,
"
Mr. Frank C. WOOdside, III
DINSMORE , SHOHL
1900 Chemed Center
3~~ Eaat Fifth Street
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Plaintiffs' Liaiaon Counsel tor penn.y1vania
Stephen Sheller, Esquire
SHELLERi LUDWIG, ET AL.
1~28 Ws nut Street
Third Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19102
.,
I:"
,
"
("'..
Allan H. starr, I.quire
wnITm AND WILLIAMS
One Li~erty Place
suite 1800
16~0 Market street
Philadelphia, PA 19103-739~
Gilda ~ramer, I.quire
GILDA L. KRAMER
Suite 1100
1~00 Walnut ~treet
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Marta sierra Epper.on, E.quire
Linda Porr sweeMY
GIRMAN, GALLAGHER' MURTAGH
The Bellevue
200 South Broad street
suite ~OO
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Robert L. Igna.iak, E.quire
JAMES P. RILCOYNE , ASSOCIATES
Meetinghouee Bu.ine.. Center
120 Weet Germantown Pike, suite 130
Plymouth Me.ting, PA 19462
B. craiq Black, E.quire
McRISSOCR , HOFFMAN, P.C,
127 state Street
Harrieburg, PA 17101
Sarah W. Aro.ell, lequire
Peter J. Curry, I.quire
THOMAS, THOMAS' HAFIR
30~ North Front Street
P. O. Box 999
Harri.burq, PA 17108
Jeremy D. Mishkin, I.quire
Bruce H. Bikin, Esquire
MONTGOMERY, MCCRACREN, WALRER , RHOADS
Three Parkway, 20th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19102
C. Jame. Ze.zutek, E.quire
THORPE, RIID , ARMSTRONG
One RiVerfront Center
Pitt.burqh, PA 1~222
Pla.tic Surqery As.ociate. of
Lancuter, P. c.
~~4 North Quke Street
Lanca.ter, PA 17602-2225
"
Iq
,
"
"
I.
, .
, '
.
I.'
.~
I".
(fie f)./N,W- ~
TERMED TRANSF
HaG
U.S. District Court
Middle Diatrict of Pennsylvania (Harrisburg)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #r 95-CV-1279
McGee, et al v. Dow Corning Corporat,
Assigned tor Judge William W Caldwell
Demandr $50,000 42041
Lead Docketr None
Dkt# in other court; None
Cause; 28r1446pl Petition for Removal - Product Liability
et al
Filedl 08/08/95
Nature of Suitl 365
Jurisdiction; Federal Question
CYNTHIA H. MCGEE
plaintiff
James R. Ronca
[COR l..D NTCl
Schmidt & Ronca, P.C.
209 State St.
Harrisburg, PA 17101
717-232-6300
c: ::R
:/:.
. IJ) Gl
C::J'
c;':'} "1;
r-)".'
.11 ~:.~ N . ..
!. " ~~ .-
,...;" ~" 11
- ,
," ,
.' - "'J
:.of ..
~ ,- C)
I;;)
Margaret Mary Murphy
[COR LP NTC]
Schmidt & Ronca
209 State St.
Harrisburg, PA 17101
(717) 232..6300
KEN MCGEE, w/h
plaintiff
James R. Ronca
(See above)
[COR LP NTC]
Margaret Mary Murphy
(See above)
[COR 1.,P NTC]
v.
DOW CORNING CORPO~TION
defendant
Robert S. Forster, Jr.
[COR LP NTCl
Krusen, Evans & Byrne
Curt.is Center
601 Walnut St.
Suite 1100
Philadelphia, PA
215-923-4400
DOW CORNING WRIGHT CORPORATION
19106-~~r1i1'1cd rllllllh.~ rcc<lrd
I )llll~ q
M~y E. D'Apdrc\\. Clerk
Robert S. Forster, Jr. Pcf ::;)lH ~~ lU ut v)
DellUly Clertl
Page 1
Docket as of February 21, 1996 10;46 am
,.,
~
,....,
Proceedings include all events.
1195cv1279 McGee, et al v. Dow Corning Corporat, et al
TERMED
TRANSF HaG
defendant
(Seo above)
[COR LO NTC)
MENTOR CORPORATION
defendant
MEDICAL ENGINEER. CO
dba
Surgitek, a wholly owned
subsidiary of B~istol Meyers
Squibb
defendant
Gordon S. Elkins
[COR LD NTC)
Stradley, Ronon, Stevens &
Young
2600 One Commerce Sq.
Philadelphia, PA 19103-7098
HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL
defendant
Allan H. Starr
[COR LD NTCl
Anna M. Schmidt
[COR I,D NTC)
White & Williams
One Liberty Place, Suite 1800
1650 Market Bt.
Philadelphia, PA 19103-7301
Nancy Siegel
[COR LD NTC)
White & Williams
One Liberty Pl., Suite 1600
165r.l Market St.
Philadelphia, PA 19103-7301
, .
""I
\
I
I,
.' '
, '
Docket as of February 21, 1996 10146 am
1'11.98 :I
-"
f""'.
Proceedingu include all ovent~.
1195cv1279 McGee, et: al v. Dow Corning Corpol'at, et a 1
8/8/95 1
8/11/95
8/23/95 2
8/24/95 3
8/24/95 4
9/8/95 5
10/18/95 6
10/23/95 7
10/23/95 8
TERMED
TRANSF HBQ
JOINT NOTICE OF PETITION FOR REMOVAL filed by Dow Corning
Corp. & Dow Chemical. Copy of orig. cmp. from Cumb. Co. emn.
Pleas Ct. Case Number: 3017 Civil 1992 attached. Filing fee
paid $120.00 R# 111 118351 (js) [Entry date 08/10/95)
[Edit date 08/11/95J
REMARK Copy of cmp. & docket to J. Caldwflll & MDL. (jo)
LETTER - dtd. 8/21/95 to Patricia Howard, Clerk on MDL from
clerk 8nclooing docket entries, complt. & 2 orders entered
in the ED of Michigan dtd. 8/10/95 & 8/11/95. (am)
LETTER - dated 8/18/95 to Ct. from Atty. Forster o/b/o Pow
Corning requesting general stay order pending decision of
Judge Hood. (jh) [Entry date 08/28/95J
ORDER br Judge Sylvia H. Rambo IT IS ORDERED that the time
w/in wh ch the parties to the cases which are the subject
of the notices of removal may file their mtns, statements
or other responses to the notices of removal is extended to
10 days, calculated in accordance with FRCP 6, after Judge
Hood enters an order in response to Dow Corning Corp.'s mtn
to transfer. It iB further ordered that all proceedings in
this Court in those cases subject to the notices of removal
are stayed for the same time period following Judge Hood's
order. Case stayed (cc I all counsel & Ct.) (j h)
[Entry date 08/28/95J
DOCUMENT- STATEMENT PER BK PROCEDURE 9027 (E) - by pltf. reo
this removal petition. Pltts. do not consent to the
jurisdiction of this ct., do not waive their right to
contest the j1lrisdiction of this Ct. & do not waive right
to trial by jury. (je) [Entry date 09/11/95J
NOTICE by defendant Dow Corning Corporation that the
Prothonotary and all interested parties were served with
the Notice of Removal and c of s. (jh) [Entry date 10/20/95)
LETTER - from Walter Jenkins, Esq. o/b/o Dow Chemical to
Court dated 10/4/95 re, The 9/29/95 ruling by the MDL
Panel states that Courts ohould not and may not rule on any
pending mtr.s to remand or dismiss. Copy of MDL Panel Order
attached. (jh) [Entry date 10/25/95J
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER by Judge Sylvia H. Rambo IT IS ORDERED
THAT all mtns to transfer and/or to sever currently pending
in Silicone Gel Breast Implant Cases filed in this district
are stayed until further order of court. (cc, all counsel &
Ct.) (jh) [Entry date 10/25/95J [Edit date 10/26/95J
Docket as of February 21, 1996 10,46 am
Page 3
Gilda Kramer, Esquire
1500 Walnut Street, Ste. 1100
Philadelphll.\, PA 19102
Linda Porr-Sweeney, Esquire
porr & Devine
16 East King Street
Lancallter, PA 17602
B. Craig Black, Esquire
MCKISSOCK & HOFFMAN
2040 Llnglelltown Road
Suite 302
Harrisburg, PA 17110
ICHMIDT, RONCA. KRAMJR, P.C.
,,'
"VI~Hr
Shawn T. Peterson, Paralegal
209 State Street
Harrlllburg, PA 17101
(717) 232-6300
, ,
,
1 i jJ
,
1"
"
"
I'l ,'"
I, .
"
,.j
,.
,
.,
,
I I"I
, j
I' .'
, .
I'
"
,.,
I,'
'I,
"
,
"
,
.,
,
., "
1,1 '!
:1
" "
,
,
.. .. I,
, .'
" ) "
., ,
,.\ d',
". , , ,
,
...
, , , ...
I
, I' " \. J
~ IJ I .. .." 1
, ~ I I 1 "
(~'. "') ,
,
" ~ 'f.
. , !
'. , , '.
1,....1 "
1 .. , ,
, ;11
,
tl
, 1
.. , , 1
,
" .,
,"
"
" ,
'I I'
, ,
, ,
'I', ,
,
'.
I
'.
.1
,
,
" '
"
"
"
"
,.
N t I"
li: -
1 M ~~ j ~
~,; i"')\l' .,
IL~'.. ..... ,
,,~ ,
. - '! ;,~! '-I
~~j. 0.. '"
I - (,1<1 ., /;\
(.) I
P. " .,
~i, II. e:\ ',:,Il , , "
~~ .11\':_
v> :0.... ,"
~T r.~ q
~ li''' d 't'l
.~
N
, ,
,
"
"
,
.,
,.
,.
II
1'1,
"
"
. i