In re Northern District of California, Dalkon Shield IUD Products Liability Litigation

Hundreds of women (California women) (plaintiffs) filed actions in the Northern District of California for injuries they sustained from use of the Dalkon Shield intrauterine device. During the four years the device spent on the market, users of the device reported uterine perforations, infections, fetal injuries, sterility, birth defects, and other conditions. In their resulting lawsuits, thousands of women throughout the country sued various companies and individuals associated with the device (defendants), including manufacturer A.H. Robins (Robins), on various theories of relief, including negligence, negligent design, strict liability, breach of warranty, reckless conduct, conspiracy, and fraud. Some women sought compensatory damages, some sought punitive damages, and many sought both. In 1975, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred all federal actions related to the device to the District of Kansas for consolidated discovery, after which most were remanded back to their transferor courts for individual trials, including the 166 cases filed by the California women. However, after the first jury trial lasted nine weeks, the district-court judge consolidated the remaining cases in the Northern District of California and ordered the parties to brief the feasibility of pursuing the cases as a class action. Over the opposition of all defendants and all but one of the women, the district court conditionally certified a statewide class per Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) on the issue of liability against Robins and a nationwide class per Rule 23(b)(1)(B) for all women seeking punitive damages from Robins. The court also designated lead counsel for the punitive class, but the attorney resigned the position. The women appealed to decertify the nationwide class for punitive damages.