The orders from the March JPML panel hearing have been posted, and the JPML issued an order denying a motion by a plaintiff to centralize her case in the Mirena IUD device litigation MDL proceeding in the SDNY. In its order, the JPML indicated that centralization into the pending MDL was denied because the potential MDL plaintiff asserted claims beyond the ambit of the MDL, which focuses on claims related to device migration and uterine perforation. The JPML noted that it has twice denied previous requests to broaden the MDL to include claims about other types of injuries against the manufacturer of Mirena. The JPML noted that although the plaintiff seeking centralization included certain claims about the risk of migration and perforation, her specific claims did not indicate that she had experienced migration or perforation.
The JPML, by denying the motion to centralize, maintained a focused Mirena MDL. Commentators have noted that orders from the previous JPML panel hearing in January denied more requests to centralize than it granted. As we examine the orders that have issued from the March hearing, we’ll be watching closely to see if the March panel orders indicate the development of a trend against centralization.