The Motion to Transfer cases pending against Abbott Laboratories involving injuries allegedly caused by its infant formula was heard at the March 31, 2022 meeting of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML). Abbott, with support from Mead Johnson & Company, LLC, another formula manufacturer and co-defendant in a number of the cases, filed the Motion on January 18, seeking to transfer seventeen cases to the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut; after argument, the JPML issued an order on April 8, creating MDL 3026 and assigning the litigation to the Honorable Rebecca R. Pallmeyer, Chief Judge of the Northern District of Illinois. Several courts had been suggested by the Responding Plaintiffs, including the District of the District of Columbia, the Northern District of Illinois, the Eastern District of Louisiana, the Middle District of Louisiana, the Western District of Missouri and the District of Nevada. In selecting Illinois, the JPML stated:
“We are persuaded that the Northern District of Illinois
is the appropriate transferee district for these cases. More
cases are pending in this district than in any other district,
and the Abbott defendants are based in the district.”
The new MDL will include all federal court cases involving claims that the cows’ milk based formula marketed as Similac or Enfamil have a greater likelihood of causing necrotizing enterocolitis in premature infants, an acute gastrointestinal condition in which harmful bacteria accumulates in an infant’s intestines causing inflammation, rupture, possible sepsis and tissue decay. As of the date of the Order, the following lawsuits already filed are to be transferred to Judge Pallmeyer in Illinois.
-
- Central District of California (4)
- District of Connecticut (1)
- District of District of Columbia (1)
- Middle District of Florida (1)
- Northern District of Florida (1)
- Northern District of Illinois (7)
- Middle District of Louisiana (1)
Read some of our other Infant Formula posts…
New Infant Formula Lawsuits Forming Against Mead Johnson and Abbott Laboratories
