Jpml motion for transfer and consolidation

BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANELON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

______________________________)

IN RE: TOTAL BODY FORMULA ) MDL Docket No.:LITIGATION )

______________________________ )

PLANTIFFS’ MOTION FOR TRANSFER AND COORDINATION OR CONSOLIDATION PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §1407

Pursuant to Rule 7.1(b) and 7.2(h) of the Rules of Procedure of the Judicial

Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, Plaintiffs John W. Wilkerson, Bryan Hicks,

David L. Dickens, Virginia R. Dickens, B. Chase Hicks, Ed Patalas, Jennifer

Wood, Hazel White, Flora Doss and James L. Kassner, Jr. (hereinafter collectively

“Plaintiffs” or “Movants”), hereby jointly move the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict

Litigation (hereinafter “Panel” or “JPML”) for an order pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§1407 transferring all actions (hereinafter “the Total Body Actions”) against

Defendants Total Body Essential Nutrition, Inc., Wright Enrichment, Inc., Wright

Pharma, Inc., and Texamerican Food Blending, Inc., to the Northern District of

Alabama; and coordinating all actions for pretrial proceedings. A list of the Total

Body Actions is attached hereto as the Plaintiffs’ Schedule of Total Body Actions

for Transfer and Coordination.

1

AVERMENTS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION

In support of the transfer and coordination of these actions, Plaintiffs aver to

the following, as more fully set forth in the accompanying memorandum in support

of this motion:

1. All of the Total Body actions put at issue the Defendants’ liability for

manufacturing, marketing, selling, and distributing the dangerous and

defective product – Total Body Formula – which contained excessive

amounts of Selenium and Chromium. Accordingly, there is a clear

commonality of legal theory and purported violations claimed across all

the cases.

2. As required by 28 U.S.C. § 1407(a), the Total Body actions proposed for

transfer and coordination “involve[] one or more common questions of

fact.” In addition, the Total Body actions contend that the Defendants

have injured Plaintiffs who ingested the dangerous and defective product

– Total Body Formula – manufactured, marketed, sold and distributed by

the Defendants.

3. The proposed transfer and coordination “will be for the convenience of

parties and witnesses and will promote the just and efficient conduct” of

the actions. 28 U.S.C. § 1407(a). For example, because all the Total

Body Actions arise from a common set of claims regarding the 2

Defendants placing into the stream of commerce a dangerous and

defective product which caused injuries to Plaintiffs who ingested the

Defendants’ dangerous and defective product, common questions of

pretrial procedure exist.

4. Given the substantial progress that has been made in the cases filed in the

Northern District of Alabama, and the filing in the Northern District of

Alabama of 14 of the 15 cases subject to this Motion, that district would

be a logical and convenient forum. All defendants have appeared in the

Northern District of Alabama actions. Moreover, the Northern District of

Alabama court has already consolidated 9 cases actively pending there

before one Judge for discovery purposes.

5. Plaintiffs base this Motion on their Memorandum in Support of this

Motion to Transfer and Coordinate, and such other matters as may be

presented to the Panel at the time of hearing.

_________________________ Archie C. Lamb, Jr.Counsel for Plaintiffs John W.

Wilkerson, Bryan Hicks, David L. Dickens, Virginia R. Dickens, B. Chase Hicks, Ed Patalas, Jennifer Wood, Hazel White, Flora Doss, and James L. Kassner, Jr.

3

OF COUNSEL: Archie C. Lamb, Jr. F. Inge Johnstone Tyrell F. Jordan THE LAMB FIRM, LLC2900 1st Avenue South Birmingham, Alabama 35223Phone: (205) 324-4644Fax: (205) 324-4649

E. Kirk Wood (WOO046)Wood Law Firm, LLCP. O. Box 382434Birmingham, Alabama 35233(205) 612-0243

This is to certify that on this day of July , 2008, a copy of Plaintiffs’

Motion for Transfer and Coordination or Consolidation Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1407 was served on the following:

BY UNITED STATES MAIL

Mark T. Waggoner (Counsel for Total Body)Leanna Bankester PittardHand Arendall, LLC2001 Park Place North, Suite 1200Birmingham, Alabama 35203

Rod Cate (Counsel for Total Body)Hand Arendall, LLCP. O. Box 123Mobile, Alabama 36601

4

Glenn E. Ireland (Counsel for Texamerican) Sean C. Pierce Carr Allison100 Vestavia ParkwayBirmingham, Alabama 35216

D. Patterson Gloor (Counsel for Texamerican) Stephen P. Ellenbecker Gloor Law Group, LLC225 West Wacker Drive, Suite 1700Chicago, Illinois 60606

Duncan Y. Manley (Counsel for Wright)Christian & Small, LLP505 20th Street North, Suite 1800Birmingham, Alabama 35203-2696

Edgar D. Gankendorff (Counsel for Wright) Provosty & Gankendorff, LLC650 Poydras Street, Suite 2700New Orleans, Louisiana 70130

Jeffrey C. Rikard (Counsel for Cindi B. Howard; Marion Marsh, Rikard & Bryan, PC Howard; Joshua Taylor; Susan Renee800 Shades Creek Parkway Taylor; Tony Taylor; John Snider; MarcellaSuite 600-D Sparks)Birmingham, Alabama 35209

Carl Wesley Pittman (Counsel for Stockton Hess; Tammy Hess; Pittman & Perry Margaret Thompson; John Adams; Mary432 McKenzie Ave Holland; Mary Holland as mother and nextPost Office Box 710 friend of G.H., a minor; Richard Slay;Panama City, Florida 32401 and Tammy Slay)

John Clark Davis (Counsel for Stockton Hess; Tammy Hess;Law Office of John Davis Margaret Thompson; John Adams; Mary623 Beard Street Holland; Mary Holland as mother and next Tallahassee, Florida 32303 friend of G.H., a minor; Richard Slay;

and Tammy Slay)5

Clerk of the United States DistrictCourt for the Northern District of Florida401 Southeast First AveRoom 243Gainesville, Florida 32601

BY CM/ECF

Clerk of the United States DistrictCourt for the Northern District of Alabama1729 Fifth Avenue NorthBirmingham, Alabama 35203

______________________________Of Counsel

6


_______________________________________)

IN RE: TOTAL BODY FORMULA ) MDL Docket No.: LITIGATION )_______________________________________ )

PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR TRANSFER AND COORDINATION OR CONSOLIDATION PURSUANT

TO 28 U.S.C. §1407

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs John W. Wilkerson, Bryan Hicks, David L. Dickens, Virginia R.

Dickens, B. Chase Hicks, Ed Patalas, Jennifer Wood, Hazel White, Flora Doss and

James Kassner, Jr. (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Plaintiffs” or

“Movants”) have moved the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (hereinafter

“Panel” or “JPML”) for an order, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 transferring 15

virtually identical actions to a single district court and coordinating those actions

for pretrial proceedings (hereinafter “Motion for Transfer and Coordination” or

“Movant’s Motion”). All of these actions allege injuries following a consumer’s

ingestion of the defendants’ dangerous and defective product – Total Body

Formula – which contained excess amounts of Selenium and Chromium.

Plaintiffs strongly urge the Panel to transfer all the pending lawsuits to one

district court for all pretrial proceedings. Most significantly, these actions put at

issue the Defendants’ liability for manufacturing, marketing, selling, and

distributing the dangerous and defective product – Total Body Formula – which

contained excessive amounts of Selenium and Chromium. As such, the unique

aspect of these actions – i.e., in alleging virtually identical claims against the same

defendants – warrants the transfer of these cases to one court to allow the

resolution of all threshold matters in the most efficient manner for the courts and

the parties. Moreover, these cases fall squarely within the requirements of section

1407. All of these similar actions allege that the Defendants unlawfully

manufactured, distributed, marketed and sold dangerous dietary supplements

containing excessive amounts of Selenium and Chromium. It is beyond dispute

that all of these actions share common questions of fact, including the same causes

of actions and defendants. Transferring all of these cases to one court for pretrial

proceedings will be more convenient for the parties, will not prejudice any parties’

interest, and will conserve judicial resources.

BACKGROUND

A. Recall Due to Excessive Selenium

Total Body Formula is marketed as a complete full-spectrum dietary

supplement for the entire family in liquid form. The Total Body Formula products 2

are sold in eight-ounce and 32-ounce plastic bottles. The Total Body Mega

Formula is sold in 32-ounce plastic bottles. Both products are distributed by Total

Body Essential Nutrition.

Unlike in the case of drugs, manufacturers do not have to provide the United

States Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) with evidence that dietary

supplements are effective or safe before they are marketed to the public; however,

manufacturers are not permitted to market unsafe or ineffective products. Once a

dietary supplement is marketed, the FDA has to prove that the product is not safe

in order to restrict its use or remove it from the market. In contrast, before being

allowed to market a drug product, manufacturers must obtain FDA approval by

providing convincing evidence that it is both safe and effective.

On March 27, 2008, the FDA issued a press release advising consumers not

to purchase or consume Total Body Formula in the flavors of Tropical Orange and

Peach Nectar, or Total Body Mega Formula in the Orange/Tangerine flavor. The

FDA warned that samples of the liquid dietary supplement products were being

analyzed to identify the cause of reported adverse reactions, consistent with those

known to be caused by Selenium toxicity. The reactions included significant hair

loss, muscle cramps, diarrhea, joint pain, fatigue and deformed fingernails.

Selenium is a trace mineral which is needed only in small amounts for good health.

3

On or about the same date, Total Body Essential Nutrition, Inc., voluntarily

recalled Total Body Formula in the flavors of Tropical Orange and Peach Nectar

and Total Body Mega Formula in the Orange/Tangerine flavor. Furthermore,

Total Body Formula posted the following warning on its website,

http://www.totalbodyteam.com/, “IF YOU ARE TAKING TOTAL BODY

FORMULA, LOT # 4016801, 4016802, 4024801, 4031801, 4031802 or 4031803

PLEASE STOP TAKING IT NOW AND CONSULT YOUR PHYSICIAN.

THERE IS EXCESSIVE SELENIUM IN THE PRODUCT THAT CAN

CAUSE SERIOUS HEALTH PROBLEMS.” The products were distributed in

Alabama, California, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri,

New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia.

B. FDA Confirms Excessive Selenium and Chromium

Thereafter, on April 9, 2008, the FDA issued a press release warning the

public that it had found hazardous levels of Selenium in samples of certain flavors

of the dietary supplement products "Total Body Formula" and "Total Body Mega

Formula” and reiterating its warning to consumers not to purchase or consume the

dangerous products. The FDA reported that analyses of samples of the products by

FDA laboratories had found most of the samples contained extremely high levels

of selenium--up to 40,800 micrograms per recommended serving, or more than 200

4

http://www.totalbodyteam.com/

times the amount of Selenium per serving (i.e., 200 micrograms) indicated on the

labels of the products.

On May 1, 2008, the FDA again issued a press release, this time announcing

the final results of its analyses of the defective products and confirming that high

levels of Chromium, as well as Selenium, were present in the defective products.

According to the FDA, the samples contained up to 3,426 micrograms of

chromium for the recommended serving (17 times the recommended intake). The

recommended chromium intake for an adult ranges from 35 to 45 micrograms per

day. Excessive consumption of chromium can cause fatigue, muscle cramps,

hyperactivity, hypoglycemia, renal failure and liver toxicity. Excessive chromium

intake also can interfere with certain medications.

C. Pending Lawsuits Against the Defendants

Presently, Movants are Plaintiffs in 10 different lawsuits, pending in the

Northern District of Alabama. Additionally, at least 5 other lawsuits are pending

in 2 different federal jurisdictions regarding similar claims and allegations of

injury.1 All of the actions share substantial commonalities regarding the named

defendants, claims, and factual allegations. All of the plaintiffs complain that they

were injured following their ingestion of the defendants’ product – Total Body

Formula – which contained excess amounts of Selenium and Chromium.1 A list of the other federal actions subject to Plaintiffs’ Motion is included in Plaintiffs’ Schedule of Actions for Transfer and Coordination and Consolidation Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407.

5

ARGUMENT

This Panel is authorized under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to consolidate and transfer

“civil actions involving one or more common questions of fact” to a single district

court for coordination or consolidated pretrial proceedings upon the Panel’s

“determination that transfers for such proceedings will be for the convenience of

parties and witnesses and will promote the just and efficient conduct of such

actions.” 28 U.S.C. § 1407(a). The purpose of this transfer procedure is to

conserve judicial resources and to avoid the delays that are bound to result if all

aspects of pretrial proceedings were conducted separately. See Moore’s Federal

Practice – Civil, Chapter 112 Multidistrict Litigation § 112.02.

All of the cases that the parties seek to transfer and coordinate in one district

court fall squarely within the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1407(a). In fact, given

that they involve virtually identical causes of action against virtually identical

Defendants, important considerations warrant transferring all these cases to one

district court for coordination/consolidation and pretrial proceeding.

I. The Total Body Actions Satisfy All of the Requirements of Section 1407(a).

All of the cases subject to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Transfer satisfy the

requirements of section 1407(a), i.e., they “involve[] one or more common

questions of fact” and transfer for consolidated or coordinated pretrial proceedings

6

“will be for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and will promote the just

and efficient conduct of such actions.” 28 U.S.C. § 1407(a).

A. All of the Actions Share One or More Common Questions of Fact

It is without doubt that all of these actions share “one or more common

questions of fact.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1407(a). All of these actions put at issue the

Defendants’ liability for manufacturing, marketing, selling, and distributing the

dangerous and defective product – Total Body Formula – which contained

excessive amounts of Selenium and Chromium. The factual allegations in each of

these complaints are virtually identical. Indeed, except for the named plaintiffs,

many of the complaints are similarly drafted and assert the same allegations. As a

result, they are highly likely to involve duplicative discovery, including shared

witnesses and documents. On these bases alone, the MDL Panel has repeatedly

recognized that creation of a centralized forum is highly appropriate. See In re

Merscorp, Inc., Real Estate Settlement Procedures, No. 1810, --- F. Supp. 2d ---,

2007 WL 128792, at *1 (J.P.M.L. Jan. 10, 2007) (holding that centralization under

Section 1407 was warranted since all actions involved common questions of fact

and centralization would promote just and efficient conduct of the litigation, and

was necessary in order to eliminate duplicative discovery); In re NSA Telecomms.

Records Litig., 444 F. Supp. 2d 1332, 1334 (J.P.M.L. 2006); In re Seroquel Prods.

Liab. Litig., 447 F. Supp. 2d 1376, 1378 (J.P.M.L. 2006); In re Cobra Tax Shelters 7

Litig., 408 F. Supp. 2d 1348, 1349 (J.P.M.L. 2005); In re Capital One Bank Credit

Card Terms Litig., 201 F. Supp. 2d 1377, 1378 (J.P.M.L. 2002) (“[T]hese actions

share sufficient complex common questions of fact . . . .”). In addition, these

actions generally bring the same claims – namely products liability and the

common law. There cannot be any dispute that all of these actions share “one or

more common questions of fact.”

B. Transfer of These Cases Promotes Just and Efficient Conduct of These Actions and Serves the Convenience of the Parties and Witnesses

Because all these cases are factually similar, and advance similar causes of

actions, pretrial proceedings in all these actions will virtually be the same.

Transfer and coordination to one district court will preclude inconsistent rulings

relating to pretrial proceedings by different district courts on similar issues. For

this reason alone, transfer and coordination of these actions will promote the just

and efficient conduct of these actions. See, e.g., In re NSA Telecomms. Records

Litig., 444 F. Supp. 2d at 1334 (Centralization for pretrial proceedings was

warranted to “prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings” and “conserve the resources of

the parties, their counsel and the judiciary.”); In re Seroquel Prods. Liab. Litig.,

447 F. Supp. 2d at 1378; In re Banc of America Inv. Services, Inc., No. 1803, 2006

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94113, at *4 (J.P.M.L. Dec. 19, 2006) (T”ransfer under Section

8

1407 will have the salutary effect of assigning the present actions and any future

tag-along action to a single judge who can formulate a pretrial program . . . that

ensures that pretrial proceedings will be conducted in a streamlined manner leading

to the just and expeditious resolution of all actions to the overall benefit of the

parties and the courts.”); In re Prempro Products Liability Lit., 254 F.Supp.2d

1366, 1367 (J.P.M.L. 2003) (“Centralization under Section 1407 is necessary in

order to eliminate duplicative discovery, prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings . . .,

and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel and the judiciary”); In re

Cobra Tax Shelters Litig., 408 F. Supp. 2d at 1349 (“Transfer under Section 1407

will offer the benefit of placing all actions in this docket before a single judge who

can structure pretrial proceedings to accommodate all parties’ legitimate discovery

needs.”). Most fundamentally, transfer of these actions to a single district will

permit the formulation of a rational, sequenced pretrial program that will

streamline discovery, minimize witness inconvenience and overall discovery

expenses and permit parties, through cooperation and pooling of resources, to

benefit from the “economies of scale” that MDL pre-trial proceedings uniquely

facilitate.

The resolution of the Defendants’ purported affirmative defenses by a single

district court, moreover, further supports the judicial economy of centralization of

these actions. Pretrial motions, such as motions to dismiss or for summary 9

judgment, are the types of pretrial proceedings that are appropriate for the

transferee court to consider. See, e.g., U.S. v. Baxter Inter., Inc., 345 F.3d 866 (11th

Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 542 U.S. 946 (2004)(court affirmed in part and reversed in

part district court’s granting of defendants’ motion to dismiss in multidistrict

litigation actions). Consolidation of these actions in one district court will

facilitate the prompt resolution of the defendants’ intended assertions and preclude

any potential inconsistent rulings in similar cases.

The statutory requirement that transfer and coordination of these cases serve

the convenience of the parties and witnesses is also met here. Litigating these

cases in multiple courts across the country will cause substantial inconvenience to

representatives of the Defendants, who would be required to appear and sit for

deposition in each action. Given the significant day-to-day responsibilities of the

Defendants’ representatives, the need for them to personally participate in

discovery for over 15 separate lawsuits will impose a substantial and unwarranted

distraction for an extended period of time.

It would serve the convenience of all parties, moreover, to have such similar

matters resolved in one forum. As noted, these cases assert the same factual

allegations, bring similar causes of actions, and seek similar relief. Resolving the

pretrial proceedings in one court would facilitate resolution of all claims in a

timely manner without the risk of inconsistent rulings.10

II. The Northern District of Alabama is an Appropriate Forum

In light of the substantial progress that has been made in the cases filed in

the Northern District of Alabama, the number of cases filed in the Northern

District of Alabama, and the residing in the Northern District of Alabama of 17 of

the Plaintiffs with actions subject to the Motion for Transfer, that district would be

a logical and convenient forum.

The Northern District of Alabama is unquestionably the geographic “center

of gravity” and focal point of this litigation. As the MDL Panel has repeatedly

indicated, the geographic locus of duplicative litigation is the preferred forum for

centralization of duplicative multi-district litigation. See In re Merscorp, Inc.,

2007 WL 1287921, at *1 (holding that the Eastern District of Texas was the

appropriate transferee forum in this docket since “one of the eleven actions is

already pending in that district . . .”); In re Commer, Money Ctr., Inc. Equip. Lease

Litig., 22*9 F. Supp. 2d 1379, 1380 (J.P.M.L. 2002) (centralizing litigation in the

district “where almost half of the constituent actions are already pending.”); In re

Lupron Mktg & Sales Practices Litig., 180 F. Supp. 2d at 1378) (holding that the

District of Massachusetts was the most appropriate transferee district for this

litigations since “three of the four actions now before the Panel are already pending

there.”).

11

Moreover, since many of the actions against the Defendants have been filed

in the Northern District of Alabama, transfer of all the Total Body Actions to that

court can conserve judicial resources and minimize any inconvenience to the

parties and the court. See In re Asbestos Prods. Liab. Litig. (No. VI), 771 F. Supp.

415, 422 (J.P.M.L. 1991) (transfer of actions to the district with the greatest

number of pending actions is the most likely to effectuate “an overall savings of

cost and a reduction of inconvenience to all concerned.”)

Importantly, all defendants have appeared in the Northern District of

Alabama cases. Additionally, the Judges in the Northern District of Alabama have

particular experience with complex multi-party products liability litigation, such as

presented here. See In re Silicone Gel Implant Litigation, 2:92-cv-10000

(transferred to N.D. Ala. June 25, 1992). Moreover, the Northern District of

Alabama has already entered an Order consolidating 9 of the pending cases before

one judge for discovery purposes, see 6/17/08 Consolidation Order in Wilkerson v.

Total Body Essential Nutrition, 08-HGD-0626-S (N.D. Ala.), and is considering a

request for consolidation of the remaining Northern District of Alabama cases.

12

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Panel grant Plaintiffs’

Motion for Transfer and Coordination of all actions to one district court for pretrial

proceedings.

_________________________ Archie C. Lamb, Jr.Counsel for Plaintiffs John W.


OF COUNSEL:

Archie C. Lamb, Jr. F. Inge Johnstone Tyrell F. Jordan THE LAMB FIRM, LLC2900 1st Avenue South Birmingham, Alabama 35223Phone: (205) 324-4644Fax: (205) 324-4649

E. Kirk Wood (WOO046)Wood Law Firm, LLCP. O. Box 382434Birmingham, Alabama 35233(205) 612-0243

13

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that on this day of July , 2008, a copy of Plaintiffs’

Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Transfer and

Coordination or Consolidation Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 was served on the

following:

BY UNITED STATES MAILMark T. Waggoner (Counsel for Total Body)Leanna Bankester PittardHand Arendall, LLC2001 Park Place North, Suite 1200Birmingham, Alabama 35203




14






and Tammy Slay)

15


______________________________)


______________________________ )

PLAINTIFFS’ SCHEDULE OF ACTIONS FOR TRANSFER AND COORDINATION OR CONSOLIDATION PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1407

Pursuant to Rule 7.2(a)(ii) of the Rules of Procedure of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation,

Plaintiffs provide the following information on the actions that will be affected by their Motion for Transfer and

Coordination Pursuant to 28 U.S.C . § 1407:

1

Plaintiffs Defendants District/Division Civil Action No. Judge Assigned

John W. Wilkerson Total Body Essential Nutrition, Inc.; WrightEnrichment, Inc.; Texamerican Food Blending, Inc.

N. D. Ala. (Southern)

08-HGD-0626-S Magistrate Judge Harwell Davis

Bryan Hicks Total Body Essential Nutrition, Inc.; WrightEnrichment, Inc.; Texamerican Food Blending, Inc.


08-AR-0627-S Judge William Acker

David L. Dickens Total Body Essential Nutrition, Inc.; WrightEnrichment, Inc.; Texamerican Food Blending, Inc.


08-HS-0712-S Judge Virginia Emerson Hopkins

Virginia R. Dickens Total Body Essential Nutrition, Inc.; WrightEnrichment, Inc.; Texamerican Food Blending, Inc.


08-BE-0713-S Judge Karen Bowdre

Ed Patalas Total Body Essential Nutrition, Inc.; Wright


08-IPJ-0758-S Judge Inge Johnson

2

Enrichment, Inc.; Texamerican Food Blending, Inc.

B. Chase Hicks Total Body Essential Nutrition, Inc.; WrightEnrichment, Inc.; Texamerican Food Blending, Inc.


08-PWG-0759-S Judge Paul Green

Jennifer Wood Total Body Essential Nutrition, Inc.; WrightEnrichment, Inc.; Texamerican Food Blending, Inc.


08-C-0827-S Judge Scott Coogler

Hazel White on behalf of C.D.

Total Body Essential Nutrition, Inc.; WrightEnrichment, Inc.; Texamerican Food Blending, Inc.


08-P-0828-S Judge R. David Proctor

Flora Doss Total Body Essential Nutrition, Inc.; WrightEnrichment, Inc.; Texamerican Food Blending, Inc.


08-C-0949-S Judge Scott Coogler

John Snider Total Body Essential Nutrition, Inc.; WrightEnrichment, Inc.;

N. D. Ala. (Eastern)

08-HS-1009-E Judge Virginia Hopkins

3

Texamerican Food Blending, Inc.; St. John’s Nutrition

Marcella Sparks Total Body Essential Nutrition, Inc.; WrightEnrichment, Inc.; Texamerican Food Blending, Inc.; St. John’s Nutrition


08-RBP-1010-E Judge Robert Propst

Susan Renee Taylor; and Tony Taylor

Total Body Essential Nutrition, Inc.; WrightEnrichment, Inc.; Texamerican Food Blending, Inc.; St. John’s Nutrition

N. D. Ala. (Eastern)

08-HS-1011-E Judge Virginia Hopkins

Cindi B. Howard; Marion Howard; and Joshua Taylor

Total Body Essential Nutrition, Inc.; WrightEnrichment, Inc.; Texamerican Food Blending, Inc.; St. John’s Nutrition

N.D. Ala. (Eastern)

08-RBP-1012-E Judge Robert Propst

James Kassner Total Body Essential Nutrition, Inc.; WrightEnrichment, Inc.; Texamerican Food


08-PWG-1094-S Judge Paul Green

4

Blending, Inc.Stockton Hess; Tammy Hess; Margaret Thompson; John Adams; Mary Holland; Mary Holland as mother and next friend of G.H., a minor; Richard Slay; Tammy Slay; and all others similar situated

Wright Pharma, Inc.; Wright Nutrition, Inc.; Wright Enrichment, Inc.; Wright Holdings, Inc.; Global Nutrition, LLC; Texamerican Food Blending, Inc.; Total Body Essential Nutrition, Inc.; and Horizon Health Care Systems, Inc.

N.D. Fla.(Panama City)

08-RS-0200-RS-MD

Assigned to Judge Richard Smoak; Referred to Magistrate Judge Miles Davis

______________________________ Archie C. Lamb, Jr.Counsel for Plaintiffs John W.


OF COUNSEL:

Archie C. Lamb, Jr. F. Inge Johnstone

5

Tyrell F. Jordan THE LAMB FIRM, LLC2900 1st Avenue South Birmingham, Alabama 35223Phone: (205) 324-4644Fax: (205) 324-4649

E. Kirk Wood WOOD LAW FIRM, LLCP. O. Box 382434Birmingham, Alabama 35233(205) 612-0243

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

6

This is to certify that on this day of July , 2008, a copy of Plaintiffs’ Schedule of Actions was served

on the following:





D. Patterson Gloor (Counsel for Texamerican) Stephen P. Ellenbecker Gloor Law Group, LLC

7

225 West Wacker Drive, Suite 1700Chicago, Illinois 60606





John Clark Davis (Counsel for Stockton Hess; Tammy Hess;Law Office of John Davis Margaret Thompson; John Adams; Mary623 Beard Street Holland; Mary Holland as mother and next

8

Tallahassee, Florida 32303 friend of G.H., a minor; Richard Slay;and Tammy Slay)

9


______________________________)


______________________________ )

PROOF OF SERVICE OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR TRANSFER AND COORDINATION OR CONSOLIDATION PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1407, MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT, AND SCHEDULE OF

ACTIONS

This is to certify that on this day of July , 2008, a copy of

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Transfer and Coordination or Consolidation Pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1407, Memorandum of Law in Support, and Schedule of Actions was

served on the following:











and Tammy Slay)2

Clerk of the United States District (served with Motion For Transfer only) Court for the Northern District of Florida401 Southeast First AveRoom 243Gainesville, Florida 32601

BY CM/ECF

Clerk of the United States District (served with Motion For Transfer only) Court for the Northern District of Alabama1729 Fifth Avenue NorthBirmingham, Alabama 35203

_________________________OF COUNSEL

3

Jpml motion for transfer and consolidation

Documents

total body hand arendall

plaintiffs john

support of plaintiffs

total body formula mdl

rikard counsel

gankendorff counsel

copy of plaintiffs motion

waggoner counsel