Nexium, Priosec and PrevAcid Mass Tort Litigation Consolidated in New Jersey Posted on August 16, 2017 by Larry Bodine The US Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated 161 proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) products liability lawsuits into new federal MDL No. 2789 in federal court in New Jersey. It was the second, successful try by the plaintiffs. In January, the Panel denied a motion that also sought centralization of the claims. At the time, it cited the small number of filings (only 15), the differing heartburn drugs involved and the need to protect trade secrets among the various defendants. Since then, the size of the litigation has grown. Further, two defendants, AstraZeneca and Pfizer, had also changed course, and now supported consolidation. There are 34 tag-along actions in addition to the 161 cases consolidated by the Panel. US District Judge Claire C. Cecchi, who is already managing PPI cases in the district, will oversee the MDL litigation. Heartburn drugs in the MDL: Nexium Nexium 24HR Prilosec Prilosec OTC PrevAcid PrevAcid 24HR Dexilant Protonix Causes kidney damage The defendants are AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, Pfizer, Inc., Wyeth Pharmaceuticals Inc., Wyeth LLC, Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories, Procter & Gamble Company, Takeda, Novartis Consumer Health, Inc., Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics, Inc. and Novartis Institute for Biomedical Research Inc. In the 161 personal injury and wrongful death actions, plaintiffs allege that as a result of taking one or more proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs), they or their decedents suffered kidney injury (e.g., chronic kidney disease (CKD), acute interstitial nephritis, end stage renal disease, or kidney failure). Plaintiffs allege that defendants failed to adequately warn of the negative effects and risks associated with PPIs. “Although several of the grounds on which we denied centralization in Proton-Pump I remain largely valid, we find that the significantly larger number 6 of involved actions, districts, and counsel, the concomitant increase in burden on party and judicial resources, and the opportunity for federal-state coordination, coupled with most defendants’ change in position to now support centralization, tip the balance in favor of creating an MDL,” the Panel said. “Centralization will facilitate a uniform and efficient pretrial approach to this litigation, eliminate duplicative discovery, prevent inconsistent rulings on Daubert and other pretrial issues, and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary,” the Panel said.