On Eve of JPML Decision, a Closer Look at Darvocet Lawsuit MDL
With an announcement due any day now about whether multidistrict litigation (MDL) will be granted for all federal Darvon and Darvocet lawsuits, it is worth taking a closer look at the MDL procedure and the panel of judges that oversees it.
As the Rottenstein Law Group has previously written, MDL is a mechanism that allows the pretrial litigation of numerous similar cases to be centralized and consolidated before a single judge in a single court. This provides several benefits, including preventing inconsistent pretrial judicial rulings, avoiding duplicative discovery (the process in which the lawyers representing the plaintiffs and the defense gather and share evidence), and conserving the resources of the parties, witnesses, and courts. It can also provide a strategic advantage for plaintiffs, as their attorneys can work together to coordinate ideas and strategies.
The group that has the authority to transfer multiple, similar cases to one federal judge for coordination and consolidation is the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML). The JPML consists of seven federal judges appointed by the Chief Justice of the United States. Aside from determining which cases are appropriate for MDL, the Panel also must decide to which federal court each case approved for MDL should be transferred. The JPML may initiate proceedings for transfer itself or in response to a motion filed with it. In the case of Darvon/Davocet lawsuit MDL, the request for consolidation came from lawyers for plaintiff Kristine Esposito, who is suing Darvon's and Darvocet's maker, Xanodyne Pharmaceuticals, over her alleged cardiac injury.
Whoever initiates the proceedings for transfer, the decision to grant MDL for a group of cases comes down to the JPML's determination of whether the cases share at least one "question of fact." A question of fact is a legal term that refers to a factual dispute between the parties in a lawsuit that will be resolved at trial by the judge or jury. It is not up the JPML to answer questions of fact, merely to decide whether at least one exists among all the cases for which MDL is being sought. An example of a question of fact in Darvocet litigation could be, "Did Darvocet's manufacturer fail to warn consumers of the drug's potential side effects?" In this example, if the JPML determines that this question of fact is central to the outcome of all of the lawsuits being considered for multidistrict litigation, then it would likely grant them MDL status.
As soon as the JPML makes a decision regarding the proposed Darvon/Darvocet MDL, the Rottenstein Law Group will provide the details of this important development. Before that happens, however, feel free to contact RLG with any questions you have about Darvocet lawsuits. And if you're ready to take the next step and file a lawsuit against Xanodyne or another manufacturer, RLG will review the details of your case for free. For more than 25 years, consumers injured by dangerous products have counted on RLG's lawyers to protect their rights and obtain maximum compensation for them.
As the Rottenstein Law Group has previously written, MDL is a mechanism that allows the pretrial litigation of numerous similar cases to be centralized and consolidated before a single judge in a single court. This provides several benefits, including preventing inconsistent pretrial judicial rulings, avoiding duplicative discovery (the process in which the lawyers representing the plaintiffs and the defense gather and share evidence), and conserving the resources of the parties, witnesses, and courts. It can also provide a strategic advantage for plaintiffs, as their attorneys can work together to coordinate ideas and strategies.
The group that has the authority to transfer multiple, similar cases to one federal judge for coordination and consolidation is the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML). The JPML consists of seven federal judges appointed by the Chief Justice of the United States. Aside from determining which cases are appropriate for MDL, the Panel also must decide to which federal court each case approved for MDL should be transferred. The JPML may initiate proceedings for transfer itself or in response to a motion filed with it. In the case of Darvon/Davocet lawsuit MDL, the request for consolidation came from lawyers for plaintiff Kristine Esposito, who is suing Darvon's and Darvocet's maker, Xanodyne Pharmaceuticals, over her alleged cardiac injury.
Whoever initiates the proceedings for transfer, the decision to grant MDL for a group of cases comes down to the JPML's determination of whether the cases share at least one "question of fact." A question of fact is a legal term that refers to a factual dispute between the parties in a lawsuit that will be resolved at trial by the judge or jury. It is not up the JPML to answer questions of fact, merely to decide whether at least one exists among all the cases for which MDL is being sought. An example of a question of fact in Darvocet litigation could be, "Did Darvocet's manufacturer fail to warn consumers of the drug's potential side effects?" In this example, if the JPML determines that this question of fact is central to the outcome of all of the lawsuits being considered for multidistrict litigation, then it would likely grant them MDL status.
As soon as the JPML makes a decision regarding the proposed Darvon/Darvocet MDL, the Rottenstein Law Group will provide the details of this important development. Before that happens, however, feel free to contact RLG with any questions you have about Darvocet lawsuits. And if you're ready to take the next step and file a lawsuit against Xanodyne or another manufacturer, RLG will review the details of your case for free. For more than 25 years, consumers injured by dangerous products have counted on RLG's lawyers to protect their rights and obtain maximum compensation for them.