Multi-District Litigation

A petition for mandamus involving subject-matter jurisdiction and fraudulent joinder issues regarding some 14,000 actions in the diet drug multi-district litigation. In re Briscoe, 448 F.3d 201 (3d Cir. 2006).

A group of motor fuel retailers in an multi-district litigation proceeding involving a series of class actions alleging that the sale of motor fuel without compensating for weather-related changes in volume and temperature was fraudulent. In re Motor Fuel Temperature Sales Practices Litig., MDL No. 1840, Civ. No. 07-MDL-1840-KHV (D. Kan.).

A case presenting the question whether the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation may direct the transfer of cases pending in a federal district court when they are already in trial. Cimino v. Pittsburgh Corning Corp., 528 U.S. 1156 (2000), 151 F.3d 297 (5th Cir. 1998). See 1999 WL 33639372 (brief) (U.S. Supreme Court and U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit).

A case involving the authority of a federal court to impose assessments on individual recoveries in multi-district litigation in order to fund “common benefit” awards. In re Diet Drugs (Phentermine/Fenfluramine/Dexfenfluramine) Products Liability Litig., 401 F.3d 143 (3d Cir. 2005). See 2004 WL 3757159 (brief) (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit).

A group of appeals involving the question of the interpretation of the federal filing fee statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1914, in multi-district litigation. In re Diet Drugs (Phentermine/Fenfluramine/Dexfenfluramine) Products Liability Litigation, 418 F.3d 372 (3d Cir. 2005).

A petition for mandamus seeking termination of the diet drug multi-district litigation involving more than 30,000 claimants on the ground that coordinated pretrial proceedings had ended. In re Wilson, 451 F.3d 161 (3d Cir. 2006).