|
YAZ CLASS ACTION, YASMIN CLASS ACTION or YAZ MDL: THE DIFFERENCE What is an MDL and how is it different from a “class action”? In mass tort litigation in the United States, the acronym “MDL” stands for Multidistrict Litigation. Multidistrict litigation is the term applied to a process that brings together multiple cases from different federal courts in one location. Multidistrict Litigation procedures allegedly speed the process of handling complex cases such as exist typically in drug product liability suits - such as in the case of Yaz, Yasmin, Ocella, etc. MDL cases exist when “civil actions involving one or more common questions of fact are pending in different districts.” 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 In order to allegedly help process sometimes hundreds or thousands of plaintiffs / victims in dozens of different federal courts which all may share common issues, a Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation decides whether cases should be consolidated under an MDL and ultimately where to transfer the cases at issue. Cases under an MDL are sent from one court to another for all pretrial proceedings and discovery. The court sending the cases is known as the transferor court, and the court receiving the cases is called the transferee court. If the cases at issue are not settled or dismissed in the transferee court, they are remanded (sent back) to the original transferor court for trial. The MDL statute is located at 28 USC Section 1407 in the United States Code. This section was created in 1968 in response to a large number of cases that overwhelmed the federal courts. Since that time, MDL litigation has grown and is used in many contexts to this day. Multidistrict litigation only applies to cases filed in federal courts, but some states have their own versions of multidistrict litigation to deal with mass torts. MDL formation takes place when there are numerous federal cases that involve allegedly common questions of fact. In such cases, the Judicial Panel on MultiDistrict Litigation, the JPML, can bring all of those cases together for coordinated pretrial proceedings. The argument used by those who support MDL formation is that bringing these cases together avoids expensive duplicative common discovery and other issues. Most corporate defendants prefer MDL proceedings for a number of reasons. From a defendant’s view, they are at less risk if each defense witness is cross-examined in a single deposition, as opposed to multiple depositions. When deposed more than once, defendants are aware that their employees and other individuals being deposed may give inconsistent testimony that damages their credibility and thus the defendant’s defense may suffer. For example, in Yaz litigation, if one party were to sue alone, they would have to sue the corporation and its representatives individually and bear the cost of the depositions, etc. alone. In an MDL, the many Yaz victims are brought together and can depose relevant parties only once, with each plaintiff / victim able to use those depositions. There are many issues surrounding these arrangements that may be of concern to both the plaintiffs and the defendants. The use of MDL to handle mass torts is by no means free of controversy. Another alleged benefit of MDL use is the avoidance of inconsistent rulings. Without MDL use, one judge might make one ruling that impacts discovery, and another judge in another location might make a conflicting ruling. All of these alleged benefits of MDL use are disputed by many attorneys. At the end of the pretrial proceedings, individual cases are then sent back to their home state of origin for trial. Usually, individual, case specific discovery is still handled in the original state where the claim originated. Is a MDL dealing with many people injured by a type of drug, such as Yaz, a class action as commonly understood by most people when they discuss “class actions”? No. MDL is not a class action as the term is usually applied. This is important to understand. A class action is a term typically applied to one case with many people with very similar injuries. MDL, as opposed to class action, is many individual very different cases brought together for various reasons including discovery purposes as outlined above. Lawyers have many different views as to the alleged benefits and potential downfalls of MDL use. A MDL action in Yaz, for example, has many women with very different injuries. One may have had to have gallbladder removal, while another may be tragically blind from a stroke while taking Yaz. The cases are unique and will have very different resolutions. On the other hand, a class action might be for a bank fee where everyone paid the exact same mischarged fee and receives the same settlement from the class. Essentially, class actions are for very uniform injuries, often in business settings such as fees charged by banks. MDL is one aspect of Mass Torts that has evolved to sometimes address the needs of many people injured in vastly different ways by one drug or class of drugs.
The Mulligan Law Firm and DrugRxRecall are actively evaluating potential Yaz claims for injuries such as blood clots and related medical side effects.In addition to blood clots, there are other serious side effects potentially related to Yaz, Yasmin, Gianvi, and Ocella, including: - Gall Bladder Damage / Gall Bladder Removal
If you or a loved one have taken Yaz, Yasmin, or Ocella or a related drug and suffered a venous thrombosis or other serious side effect the lawyers of The Mulligan Law Firm would like to talk with you. Please contact us today at 888 446 8087. We have intake staff ready to answer your questions and mail you a free information packet and questionnaire. Yaz, Yasmin, Ocella, Beyaz, Safyral, Loryna, Syeda, Zarah, and related drugs, have been reportedly linked with venous thrombosis, DVT, stroke, heart attack, gallbladder removal and/or disease, death, and blood clots. We are actively investigating claims by women who have taken these drugs and suffered various serious side effects. We can evaluate claims originating in all 50 United States. Act quickly as failure to investigate your legal rights and delay may cause you to lose your potential claim if it is barred by the statute of limitations that applies to your potential claim.
|
