Dunham v. Covidien LP

Background

Covidien moved on February 7, 2020, to dismiss Dunham’s second amended complaint. Dunham opposed the motion on February 21, and Covidien filed a reply on February 28. On June 19, the parties jointly asked the court to pause the case while the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation considered whether to transfer and coordinate this case with eleven other federal actions involving alleged defects in Covidien hernia-mesh products. The court granted that request the same day.

Panel’s transfer decision

On August 7, 2020, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation denied Covidien’s request to centralize the twelve federal actions in one district. The panel concluded that centralization was not necessary for the convenience of the parties and witnesses or for the efficient handling of the litigation at that time. Although centralization could reduce duplicative discovery and inconsistent pretrial rulings, the panel found that the benefits did not outweigh the disruption to cases that had already been pending for two or three years.

The panel also relied on the relatively small number of federal actions, the fact that courts in most of the cases had already ruled on motions to dismiss, and the availability of informal cooperation among the parties and their common counsel. The denial was without prejudice to Covidien seeking a coordinated federal proceeding in the future.

District court’s order

After the panel’s decision, Covidien asked the district court to lift the stay and restore its motion to dismiss. The order states: “The stay is lifted. The Motion to Dismiss restored.” Judge John G. Koeltl therefore resumed the case and returned Covidien’s dismissal motion to the court’s active docket. The supplied opinion text does not state how the court ruled on the substance of that motion. The panel’s separate order denying centralization was an ancillary case-management ruling, not a decision on the parties’ underlying product-liability claims.