
    In re NORPLANT CONTRACEPTIVE PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION.
    MDL No. 1038.
    United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Beaumont Division.
    Dec. 24, 1996.
    
      Chris Parks of Parser and Parks, Port Arthur, TX, Roger Brósnahan of Brosnahan, Joseph & Suggs, Minnteapolis, MN, and Turner Branch, Branch Law Firm, Albuquerque, NM, for Plaintiffs.
    John W. Vardaman, F. Lane Heard III, Steve Farina of Wiliams & Connolly, Washington, DC, Paul W. Gertz, Larry Germer, and Tonya Connell Adams of Germer & Gertz, Beaumont, TX, for Defendants.
   ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS

SCHELL, Chief Judge.

This matter is before the court on Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss based on the doctrine of forum non conveniens. Upon consideration of Defendants’ motions, the memorandum in support of such motions, responses from Plaintiffs’ counsel, and the applicable law, the court is of the opinion that the motions should be DENIED.

Defendants, American Home Products Corporation and Wyeth Laboratories, Inc., seek dismissal of a number of cases filed directly in this MDL 1038 transferee court based on the doctrine of forum non conveniens. However, “[o]nly when the more convenient forum is a foreign country can a suit brought in a proper federal venue be dismissed on grounds of forum non conveniens.” “If the motion seeks a change of forum within the federal system, 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) applies instead of the common law doctrine of forum non conveniens.” Because there is no indication that a foreign country will provide a more convenient venue for any of these cases, the court must rely on § 1404(a) to deal with the issue raised by Defendants’ motions. Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss based on forum non conveniens be DENIED.

The court will however evaluate, under the standards of § 1404(a), the propriety of cases filed directly in this court under circumstances reflecting obvious forum-shopping by plaintiffs’ counsel. Further, the court is prepared to proceed at this time either in the context of motions for change of venue or sua sponte if necessary. Obviously, § 1404(a) transfers before the conclusion of multidistrict litigation pretrial proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 present the anomalous situation of transferring cases out to a more appropriate venue under § 1404(a), only to have those cases transferred back to this court under § 1407 by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. Nevertheless, this court is prepared to do just that in order to discourage future attempts by plaintiffs to bypass the § 1407 remand mechanism and in order to minimize the burden on this transferee court of unnecessary transfer decisions at a later time resulting in the return of cases to the districts where they should have been filed in the first place.

In its Order of November 14, 1996, this court cautioned plaintiffs’ counsel about the direct filing of cases with this court under circumstances that could not withstand § 1404(a) scrutiny. Apparently some plaintiffs’ counsel have chosen to ignore that order and to pursue a strategy of forum-shopping by directly filing eases which have absolutely no underlying connection to this district other than the fact that the cases have been consolidated here for pretrial management under § 1407. Therefore, the court is left with little choice but to either take some sort of action to enforce its November 14th Order, or risk seeing the direct filing approach grow in popularity among the Norplant plaintiffs’ bar should this court not take action to discourage the practice.

The court anticipates that plaintiffs in cases where venue is challenged will be required to provide the court with the information necessary to determine appropriate venue under § 1404(a), such as: (1) the federal judicial district in which the plaintiff resides; (2) the federal judicial district in which the plaintiff received Norplant counseling and implantation; and (3) the federal judicial district in which the plaintiffs current medical providers reside. Further, the court may schedule hearings in order to evaluate change of venue under § 1404(a) for the cases listed in Appendix A and any other similar cases. The presence of plaintiffs’ counsel, individual plaintiffs, and other witnesses necessary to determine the propriety of a § 1404(a) transfer will be required.

APPENDIX A

LEAD PLAINTIFF CASE NUMBER

Kathy A. Adams 1.-96-CV-5614

Sharon L. Burnett 1:96-CV-5615

Janet Fournier L96-CV-5616

Rebecca Johnson 1:96-CV-5617

Glenda McDowel 1-.96-CV-5618

Wendy S. Rima 1:96-CV-5619

Louise L. Swan l:96-CV-5620

Alaina Yardley 1:96-CV-5621

Stephanie A. Adams l:96-CV-5622

Monica C. Counce l:96-CV-5623

Latonya J. Hamilton L96-CV-5624

Maureen L. Latta l:96-CV-5625

Linda J. Pearson l:96-CV-5626

Sue M. Smith l:96-CV-5627

Christal A. Williams l:96-CV-5628

Laura J. Althaus l:96-CV-5629

Michelle L. Jobelius 1:96-CV~5630

Laura A. Stockers 1-.96-CV-5631

Hillary S. Lackritz 1:96-CV~5633

Mary Viola Mulay 1:96-CV~5634

Jeraldine K. Ah Sing l:96-CV-5635

Rhonda M. Bear l:96-CV-~5636

Jennifer Jo Freund l:96-CV--5637

Stephanie J. Doane l:96-CV-5638

Meredith M. Case 1-.96-CV-5639

Kristen D. Reed 1.-96-CV-5640

Lori Ann Adams 1:96-CV-5641

LEAD PLAINTIFF CASE NUMBER

Jeana Charlene Herron

Kelly L. Day l:96-CV-5643

Colby Sue Delana l;96-CV-5658

Davina Dawn McCabe l:96-CV-5659

Amy Lynnette McKinney l:96-CV-5660

Rebecca Jean Nadell 1:96-CV-5661

Marjorie Marie Dusek l:96-CV-5662

Gail Hoapili l:96-CV-5663

Alicia Renee Keith

Jennifer Ann Holt

Dawn Lynn Malott l:96-CV-5666

Bonnie Gay White l:96-CV-5667

L.

Linda MacClay-Shade 1-.96-CV-5669

Linda Diane Kohls l:96-CV-5670

Nicole Sharie Colston

Mari Ruth Beren

Stephanie Lou Haymond 1-.96-CV-5673

Sabrina M. Twite

Erica Webre

S. Jones

Sharia N. Baniaga

Patrice Mitchell-Huer

Katrina Lee Dorsey

Kimberly Ackerson 1:96-CV-5771

Kristin Dwyer 1.-96-CV-5772

Beth A. Pierce l:96-CV-5774

April Dawn Smith l:96-CV-5775

Jacqueline Lowe l:96-CV-5776

Windy Lane Burman l:9&-CV-5777

Melissa Leann Devilbiss

Vanessa Leigh Less

Erica Denise Norwood

Lillian Mary Scholes l:96-CV-5782

Ruby Lee Thompson-Dowling l:96-CV-5783

Valenchia Canty

Vanessa Robinson l:96-CV-5857

Hope Dasher l:96-CV-5858

Dana Dorey l:96-CV-5859

Felicia Butler l:96-CV-5860

Angela Osborn 1:96-CV-5861

Frazier l:96-CV-5862

Melissa Lynn Hall l:96-CV-5863

Amaral

Iesha Alston

Maria Echevarria l:96-CV-5866

Pamela Humphries l:96-CV-5998

Jennifer Spires l:96-CV-6000

Brenda Pinson

Shanette Odell

Nicole Johnson l:96-CV-6003

Angel Adams l:96-CV-6004

Evelyn Johnson l:96-CV-6005

Marcelene Hart l:96-CV-6006

Donna Gidney l:96-CV-6007

l:96-CV-6008

Renee Edwards l:96-CV-6009

LEAD PLAINTIFF CASE NUMBER

Kimmie McClendon 1:96-CV-6010

Kimalyn McIntosh 1:96-CV-6011

Natalee Lawson 1:96-CV-6012

Crystal Harrison 1:96-CV-6013

Minnie Banks 1:96-CV-6014

Melissa Baier 1.-96-CV-6015

Stacie Lambert 1:96-CV-6190

Simone Davis 1:96-CV-6191

Margaret Klein 1:96-CV-6192

Darlene Otake

Magali Guevara 1:96-CV-6194

Lavonne Herrick 1:96-CV-6207

Dawn Daggett

Lewis l:96-CV-6209

Margie Barnes 1:96-CV-6210

Melanie Burris 1-.96-CV-6211

Heather Straus 1:96-CV-6212

Sandy Miller 1-.96-CV-6213

Stacy Black 1:96-CV-6214

Kimberly Graham 1:96-CV-6215

Ana Lucero

Becky 0’Neill 1:96-CV-6217

Ellen McDonald 1:96-CV-6218

Julie Williams 1:96-CV-6219

L. l:96-CV-6220

Angela D. Jensen 1-.96-CV-6221 
      
      . See Appendix A for a list of the cases in which Defendants filed a motion to dismiss.
     
      
      . Plaintiffs in the following cause numbers filed a response: 1:96-CV-6190, 1:96-CV-6191, 1:96-CV-6192, 1:96-CV-6193, 1:96-CV-6194, 1:96-CV-6207, l:96-CV-6208, l:96-CV-6209, 1:96-CV6-210, 1:96-CV-6211, 1:96-CV-6212, 1:96-CV-6213, 1:96-CV-6214, 1-.96-CV-6216, 1:96-CV-6217, 1:96-CV-6218, 1:96-CV-6219, 1:96-CV-6220, and 1:96-CV-6221.
     
      
      . In re Air Crash Disaster Near New Orleans, La. on July 9, 1982, 821 F.2d 1147, 1159 n. 15 (5th Cir.1987) (citations omitted), vacated on other grounds sub nom. Pan American World Airways, Inc. v. Lopez, 490 U.S. 1032, 109 S.Ct. 1928, 104 L.Ed.2d 400, reinstated save as to damages under original nom., 883 F.2d 17 (5th Cir.1989).
     
      
      . In re Air Crash, 821 F.2d at 1159 n. 15.
     
      
      . 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) provides: "For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought.”
     
      
      . For purposes of these motions, the court will assume without deciding that the Eastern District of Texas is a technically proper venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1391.
     