Multidistrict litigation

What Is Multidistrict Litigation?

Multidistrict litigation (MDL) is a special legal procedure in the U.S. federal court system designed to manage complex civil actions that involve one or more common questions of fact and are pending in different federal courts. As a key aspect of legal procedure, its primary purpose is to consolidate these numerous individual lawsuits into a single forum for coordinated and consolidated pretrial proceedings. This streamlines the legal process, aiming to increase efficiency, reduce duplicated discovery efforts, prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, and conserve judicial resources for all parties involved in the multidistrict litigation³⁷, ³⁸, ³⁹.

History and Origin

The concept of multidistrict litigation emerged in the early 1960s in response to the challenges posed by large-scale, complex litigation, particularly a massive antitrust scandal involving the electrical equipment industry. This scandal led to nearly 2,000 separate civil actions across many federal judicial districts³⁶. Recognizing the need for a more efficient way to handle such widespread cases, Congress enacted 28 U.S.C. § 1407 in 1968, establishing the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML).³⁵ The JPML, consisting of seven federal judges appointed by the Chief Justice of the United States, was created with the authority to determine whether actions pending in different federal districts should be transferred to a single federal court for coordinated pretrial proceedings.³³, ³⁴ The intent was to enhance judicial efficiency by centralizing cases that share factual issues, particularly those arising from a single event or a common product, such as airplane crashes or widespread product liability claims.³¹, ³²

Key Takeaways

• Multidistrict litigation (MDL) centralizes multiple individual lawsuits with common factual questions from various federal districts into a single court for pretrial management.
• The primary goal of MDL is to promote efficiency, reduce duplicated discovery, and prevent conflicting pretrial rulings across related cases.
• The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) is responsible for deciding whether to consolidate cases into an MDL and selecting the appropriate transferee court and judge.
• While cases are centralized for pretrial matters, they are typically remanded to their original districts for trial if not resolved through settlement or dismissal in the MDL court.²⁹, ³⁰
• MDLs commonly involve mass torts, such as those related to defective drugs, medical devices, or environmental contamination.²⁸

Interpreting Multidistrict Litigation

Interpreting multidistrict litigation involves understanding its role as a procedural mechanism rather than a substantive outcome. MDL does not merge individual lawsuits into a single case, unlike a class action lawsuit. Instead, it creates a coordinated framework for the initial phases of litigation, primarily discovery and pretrial proceedings.²⁶, ²⁷ The selected transferee judge oversees all common factual issues, which can involve complex evidence gathering and expert testimony. This coordinated approach allows for consistent rulings on preliminary matters and can significantly streamline the path towards resolution. However, each individual case within an MDL retains its distinct identity and, if not settled or dismissed, is ultimately returned to its original jurisdiction for trial.²⁴, ²⁵

Hypothetical Example

Imagine a pharmaceutical company, "PharmaCorp," releases a new medication that is later found to cause a rare but serious side effect in a significant number of patients across the United States. Patients from California, New York, Texas, and several other states file individual lawsuits against PharmaCorp in their respective federal district courts, all alleging similar injuries due to the drug.

Recognizing that these lawsuits share common questions of fact regarding the drug's safety, manufacturing, and PharmaCorp's knowledge of potential risks, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) might initiate or receive a motion to consolidate these cases into a multidistrict litigation.

The JPML would then determine if centralization is appropriate and, if so, select a single federal court, say the District of Delaware, to serve as the transferee court. All existing and newly filed federal lawsuits against PharmaCorp concerning this drug would be transferred to this court for coordinated pretrial proceedings. The transferee judge would oversee common discovery, such as depositions of PharmaCorp executives and experts, and manage all motions pertaining to shared legal issues. This allows the parties to conduct discovery once for all cases, rather than individually in each district, greatly enhancing efficiency and potentially leading to a global settlement.

Practical Applications

Multidistrict litigation is broadly applied in situations where numerous lawsuits arise from a single incident or a series of related events that affect a large number of plaintiffs across different federal jurisdictions. Its practical application is most evident in mass torts, such as those involving defective products, pharmaceuticals, and environmental disasters. For instance, MDLs have been established for complex cases related to defective medical devices, widespread data breaches, and antitrust price-fixing.²¹, ²², ²³ A notable example includes the opioid multidistrict litigation, where a federal judge coordinated thousands of cases against opioid manufacturers and distributors.²⁰ This consolidation allows for streamlined discovery and preliminary motions, benefiting both plaintiffs by pooling resources and defendants by centralizing their defense strategy. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation provides statistics on pending MDLs, which often represent a significant portion of the federal civil docket.¹⁹

Limitations and Criticisms

Despite its benefits in efficiency and resource conservation, multidistrict litigation faces several criticisms. One common concern is the concentration of power in a single transferee judge, who oversees thousands of cases and makes critical pretrial rulings with limited immediate appellate review.¹⁸ This can lead to inconsistent application of law or an overemphasis on settlement over individual trial.¹⁶, ¹⁷ Critics also point to potential "agency problems," where the interests of court-appointed lead counsel may not perfectly align with the diverse individual interests of all plaintiffs within the MDL, particularly when negotiating large global settlements.¹⁴, ¹⁵ While theoretically individual cases are remanded for trial if not settled, in practice, a very high percentage of MDL cases are resolved within the transferee court, leading some to argue that MDL has evolved beyond its original intent as merely a pretrial management tool.¹², ¹³ This raises questions about due process and whether individual plaintiffs receive their "day in court" when their cases are managed collectively.¹¹

Multidistrict Litigation vs. Class Action Lawsuit

While both multidistrict litigation (MDL) and a class action lawsuit involve aggregating numerous individual claims, they operate under distinct legal frameworks and serve different purposes. The primary difference lies in how individual claims are treated and resolved.

An MDL involves the consolidation of multiple, separate lawsuits that have been filed in different federal courts but share common questions of fact. These cases are transferred to a single federal court for coordinated pretrial proceedings, such as discovery and preliminary motions. Crucially, each individual case within an MDL remains its own lawsuit, and if a settlement is not reached or the case is not dismissed, it is typically sent back to its original court for trial. Plaintiffs in an MDL retain more individual control over their cases and potential settlement amounts, which can vary based on the specifics of their injury or loss.⁹, ¹⁰

In contrast, a class action lawsuit is a single lawsuit filed by one or more plaintiffs on behalf of a larger group (the "class") who have suffered similar injuries from the same defendant. For a class action to proceed, a court must "certify" the class, determining that there are common questions of law or fact that predominate over individual ones and that a class action is the superior method for resolving the dispute. If certified, the outcome—whether a settlement or a judgment after trial—binds all members of the class, except those who formally opt out. Class actions are often used for claims where individual damages might be too small to warrant separate lawsuits, making collective action more viable.

##⁷, ⁸ FAQs

What types of cases are typically handled as multidistrict litigation?

Multidistrict litigation often involves complex cases with a large number of plaintiffs who have suffered similar injuries due to a single product, event, or corporate action. Common categories include mass torts such as product liability claims related to pharmaceuticals or medical devices, environmental disasters, antitrust violations, and securities fraud.

##⁵, ⁶# Who decides if cases become part of a multidistrict litigation?
The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML), a body of seven federal judges, makes the determination. The JPML can act on its own initiative or, more commonly, at the request of a party involved in one of the lawsuits. They assess whether transferring the cases for coordinated pretrial proceedings will serve the convenience of parties and witnesses and promote the efficient conduct of the actions.

##³, ⁴# Are cases in multidistrict litigation resolved together?
Cases in multidistrict litigation are centralized for efficient management of common pretrial issues, such as discovery and motions. While many MDLs result in global settlements, individual cases that are not settled or dismissed during the pretrial phase are typically remanded (sent back) to their original federal district courts for individual trials. This means that while pretrial matters are handled collectively, the ultimate resolution of each case can still be individual.¹, ²