A case we reviewed a few months in the past got here to thoughts lately, not solely due to its consequence, but additionally as a result of how lengthy it has been kicking round in our federal court docket system, trapped in an MDL. What refreshed our recollection? As common weblog customers have learn this week, the annual ACI Drug and Medical Machine Litigation convention was final week in New York, the place we heard from an impressive panel of attorneys on the Rule 16.1, the brand new Federal Rule that addresses multidistrict litigation. We lately offered a CLE on that matter too, together with our colleague Christina Olivos. One in all our main beefs with MDLs is the large overuse (abuse?) of MDLs by plaintiffs with out tenable claims, generally by the 1000’s. The result’s clogged dockets, inattention to precise deserves, inevitable delay, and unfair strain to enter into mass settlements. The brand new Rule 16.1 would possibly assist with this example, however then once more, it may not.
This isn’t solely a protection concern, as plaintiffs and their legal professionals likewise discover themselves caught in MDLs with little management over their particular person instances and even much less consideration. The district court docket’s order in Mercier v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., No. CV 23-0040, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 194642 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 2024), illustrates the purpose. In Mercier, the plaintiff’s decedent had hip substitute surgical procedure, though we’re not advised when. Regardless, he sued the hip implant’s producer in 2015 alleging problems, and he filed immediately into the Pinnacle Hip MDL within the Northern District of Texas.
Then he waited. After which he waited extra. After which some extra. As is frequent in multidistrict litigation, this affected person’s case languished within the MDL for seven years, till being transferred to the Central District of California for pretrial and trial proceedings. Throughout that point, life and demise intervened. The affected person moved from California to Nevada, and he sadly handed away in 2024 as the results of an opioid overdose.
The administrator of the affected person’s property filed an amended criticism alleging survival claims, but additionally including claims for wrongful demise—claiming that the affected person’s alleged hip-related accidents brought on his demise, too. The problem was whether or not California legislation or Nevada legislation utilized, since these states deal with wrongful demise and survival claims in another way. California’s wrongful demise declare requires the joinder of all indispensable events, and on the time the motion was filed, California adopted the rule {that a} plaintiff’s ache and struggling damages dies with him. (California has since altered that rule.)
The district court docket dominated that California legislation ruled. First, the court docket utilized California’s choice-of-law guidelines, stating that choice-of-law guidelines “are substantive points for Erie functions, that means federal courts in California will apply California alternative of legislation guidelines.” Id. at *6. That’s high quality, besides that this case was filed in Texas, and we have been taught again within the day that when a case is transferred, the substantive legislation transfers with it, together with choice-of-law guidelines. We’d have utilized Texas’ alternative of legislation, however we digress.
Second, the district court docket decided that California’s curiosity could be extra impaired if its legislation weren’t utilized to the case. The court docket famous that California’s choice-of-law instances “proceed to acknowledge {that a} jurisdiction ordinarily has the predominant curiosity in regulating conduct that happens inside its borders” Id. at *14. Right here, the affected person’s hip substitute surgical procedure was in California at a time when he resided in California, and the gadget was allegedly manufactured and bought in California. Furthermore, as a result of the plaintiff may treatment any deficiency within the criticism with an modification, making use of California legislation wouldn’t impair Nevada legislation within the least. One wonders why the plaintiff didn’t amend the criticism to start with, as an alternative of participating on this movement apply, however once more, we digress.
So California legislation applies, and the plaintiff needed to file an amended criticism becoming a member of all indispensable events. However that isn’t the story. As an alternative we ask, What took so lengthy? This affected person filed his criticism 9 years in the past, and the distinctive passage of time since then noticed him transfer from one state to a different and finally cross away. Think about his frustration and that of the defendants, who’ve confronted this declare for occurring a decade and now face a wrongful demise declare allegedly stemming from a surgical procedure that occurred no less than ten years in the past, and possibly longer. Possibly a rule like Rule 16.1 would have assist transfer issues alongside, and possibly not.
