Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: GLUCAGON-LIKE PEPTIDE-1 RECEPTOR AGONISTS (GLP-1 RAS) PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION
ORDER DENYING TRANSFER
Before the Panel: Plaintiff in the Craig action listed on Schedule A moves under 28 U.S.C. § 1407(c) to transfer Craig to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for inclusion in MDL No. 3094. Defendants Novo Nordisk Inc. and Novo Nordisk A/S support the motion to transfer.
This MDL encompasses personal injury actions stemming from use of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs), medicines that are prescribed for, among other things, the treatment of type 2 diabetes and to help certain obese or overweight individuals lose excess weight. Plaintiffs in the MDL allege that GLP-1 RAs caused them to suffer gastroparesis, ileus, intestinal obstruction or pseudo-obstruction, or other gastrointestinal injury. See In re Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists (GLP-1 RAs) Prods. Liab. Litig., 717 F. Supp. 3d 1370, 1373 (J.P.M.L. 2024). Plaintiff in Craig seeks to expand the scope of this MDL to include additional injuries, specifically, venous thromboembolism, deep vein thrombosis, and pulmonary embolism (collectively, DVT injuries).
The Panel “has an institutional responsibility that goes beyond simply accommodating the particular wishes of the parties.” In re Equinox Fitness Wage & Hour Emp. Pracs. Litig., 764 F. Supp. 2d 1347, 1348 (J.P.M.L. 2011). After considering the parties’ arguments, we find that transfer of Craig under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 will not serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses or promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. Plaintiff argues that actions alleging DVT injuries will share common factual and legal issues with the actions in the MDL asserting claims for gastrointestinal injuries. However, plaintiff's assertion that Craig shares the same “mechanism of harm” as the actions in the MDL is superficial at best. We note that in the recently filed master complaint in the MDL, the plaintiffs appear to allege a different mechanism of harm with respect to DVT injuries—namely, that it is the rapid weight loss attributable to the use of GLP-1 RAs that is the causal factor leading to DVT injuries. See, e.g., Master Compl. ¶¶ 226–48, In re Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists (GLP-1 RAs) Prods. Liab. Litig., No. 2:24-md-03094 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 13, 2024), ECF No. 294.1
This MDL has already increased in size considerably since we centralized this litigation in February 2024. In a concurrent order, we are adding gastrointestinal injury claims that pertain to an additional Novo Nordisk GLP-1 RA product (Saxenda). Further expansion of MDL No. 3094 to include claims for new types of injuries would significantly complicate the management of this litigation. Indeed, an MDL that encompassed any potential injury relating to use of these exceedingly popular weight loss drugs might quickly become procedurally and substantively unwieldy. Plaintiff has not demonstrated that the potential efficiency and convenience benefits of adding claims for DVT injuries to this MDL outweigh the increased managerial complexity that the addition of such claims is likely to create. Accordingly, transfer of Craig is not warranted.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion to transfer the action listed on Schedule A to MDL No. 3094 are denied.
SCHEDULE A
MDL No. 3094 — IN RE: GLUCAGON-LIKE PEPTIDE-1RECEPTOR AGONISTS (GLP-1 RAS)PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION
Northern District of Alabama
CRAIG v. NOVO NORDISK A/S, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:24−01075
FOOTNOTES
1. That plaintiffs in the MDL unilaterally added new claims to their master complaint—after the transferee court declined to grant plaintiffs permission to directly file such claims in the MDL—does not compel us to now expand the scope of this litigation. See Order, In re Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists (GLP-1 RAs) Prods. Liab. Litig., No. 2:24-md-03094 (E.D. Pa. July 26, 2024), ECF No. 207 (staying two direct-filed actions asserting DVT injuries pending Panel approval to expand the scope of the litigation).
KAREN K. CALDWELL, Chair
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: MDL No. 3094
Decided: December 12, 2024
Court: United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)