MARGALIT CORBER V. XANODYNE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., No. 13-56306 (9th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on November 18, 2014.

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 24 2013 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MARGALIT CORBER; RENE CARO; STEVE DANTZLER; LINDA SOWARDS; LORI HUISMAN; JOHNNY GEORGE, Sr.; TERRY PERRY; WILLIAM RACKLEY; ANGELA YOUNG; PAMELA RODRIGUEZ; STEVEN SYVERSON; OLGA CAICOYA; JANET CARROLL; ROSE CASH; ULAD CELENTANO; VIRGINIA COSTANZO; KIMBERLY FILLIGIM; ARMELDIA SMITH; CARLA WEST; JOANNE BIERZYNSKI, individually and as next of kin to Eleanor Wojcik; SHARLEY MORRIS; WYOMIA TIMMONS; DEAN REINKING; DANIEL THORNE; WENDELEN ASHBY; CARMEN BEDFORD; CLAUDE COMMODORE; JAMES HENSON; NANCY LOCKE; MILDRED SCOTT; BILLIE BURNETT; SHEENA HALL; BRENDA ROBERGE, individually and as next of kin to Ernest Roberge; DEBORAH WOODSUM; RICHARD PASCUITO, No. 13-56306 D.C. No. 2:12-cv-09986-PSG-E MEMORANDUM* Plaintiffs - Appellees, v. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. XANODYNE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Philip S. Gutierrez, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted August 30, 2013 Pasadena, California Before: GOULD and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and LEMELLE, District Judge.** We conclude that Plaintiff s petition for coordination was not a proposal to try the cases jointly. See Judith Romo, et al. v. Teva Pharmaceutical USA, Inc., No. 13-80036 (9th Cir., Sept. 24, 2013). We AFFIRM the district court s order granting Plaintiffs motion to remand. ** The Honorable Ivan L.R. Lemelle, District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, sitting by designation. 2 13-56306 FILED Corber v. Xanodyne Pharmaceuticals, No. 13-56306 Gould, Circuit Judge, dissenting: SEP 24 2013 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS I respectfully dissent for the same reasons expressed in the dissent to the majority opinion in Romo v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, No. 13-56310. 1

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.