Jpml motion for transfer and consolidation

1
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL
ON 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.

2
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

3
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.

4
OF COUNSEL:
Archie C. Lamb, Jr.
F. Inge Johnstone
Tyrell F. Jordan
THE LAMB FIRM, LLC
2900 1st
Avenue South
Birmingham, Alabama 35223
Phone: (205) 324-4644
Fax: (205) 324-4649
E. Kirk Wood (WOO046)
Wood Law Firm, LLC
P. O. Box 382434
(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 Pittard
Hand Arendall, LLC
2001 Park Place North, Suite 1200
Rod Cate (Counsel for Total Body)
Hand Arendall, LLC
P. O. Box 123
Mobile, Alabama 36601

5
Glenn E. Ireland (Counsel for Texamerican)
Sean C. Pierce
Carr Allison
100 Vestavia Parkway
D. Patterson Gloor (Counsel for Texamerican)
Stephen P. Ellenbecker
Gloor Law Group, LLC
225 West Wacker Drive, Suite 1700
Chicago, Illinois 60606
Duncan Y. Manley (Counsel for Wright)
Christian & Small, LLP
505 20th
Street North, Suite 1800
Birmingham, Alabama 35203-2696
Edgar D. Gankendorff (Counsel for Wright)
Provosty & Gankendorff, LLC
650 Poydras Street, Suite 2700
New Orleans, Louisiana 70130
Jeffrey C. Rikard (Counsel for Cindi B. Howard; Marion
Marsh, Rikard & Bryan, PC Howard; Joshua Taylor; Susan Renee
800 Shades Creek Parkway Taylor; Tony Taylor; John Snider; Marcella
Suite 600-D Sparks)
Carl Wesley Pittman (Counsel for Stockton Hess; Tammy Hess;
Pittman & Perry Margaret Thompson; John Adams; Mary
432 McKenzie Ave Holland; Mary Holland as mother and next
Post 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; Mary
623 Beard Street Holland; Mary Holland as mother and next
Tallahassee, Florida 32303 friend of G.H., a minor; Richard Slay;
and Tammy Slay)

6
Clerk of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Florida
401 Southeast First Ave
Room 243
Gainesville, Florida 32601
BY CM/ECF
Clerk of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Alabama
1729 Fifth Avenue North
______________________________
Of Counsel

_______________________________________
)
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.

2
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

3
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.

4
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

5
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
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.

6
were injured following their ingestion of the defendants’ product – Total Body
Formula – which contained excess amounts of Selenium and Chromium.
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.

7
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
“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

8
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
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

9
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
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

10
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
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.

11
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.
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

12
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.”).
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.

13
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.
L. Kassner, Jr.
OF COUNSEL:
Archie C. Lamb, Jr.
F. Inge Johnstone
Tyrell F. Jordan
THE LAMB FIRM, LLC
2900 1st
Avenue South
Phone: (205) 324-4644
Fax: (205) 324-4649
E. Kirk Wood (WOO046)
Wood Law Firm, LLC
P. O. Box 382434
(205) 612-0243

14
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:
Hand Arendall, LLC
Hand Arendall, LLC
P. O. Box 123
Sean C. Pierce
Carr Allison

15
505 20th
Suite 600-D Sparks)
and Tammy Slay)

1
______________________________
)
LITIGATION )
______________________________ )
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:

2
Plaintiffs Defendants District/Division Civil Action No. Judge Assigned
John W. Wilkerson Total Body Essential
Nutrition, Inc.; Wright
Enrichment, Inc.;
Texamerican Food
Blending, Inc.
N. D. Ala.
(Southern)
08-HGD-0626-S Magistrate Judge Harwell
Davis
Bryan Hicks Total Body Essential
Enrichment, Inc.;
Texamerican Food
Blending, Inc.
N. D. Ala.
(Southern)
08-AR-0627-S Judge William Acker
David L. Dickens Total Body Essential
Enrichment, Inc.;
Texamerican Food
Blending, Inc.
N. D. Ala.
(Southern)
08-HS-0712-S Judge Virginia Emerson
Hopkins
Virginia R. Dickens Total Body Essential
Enrichment, Inc.;
Texamerican Food
Blending, Inc.
N. D. Ala.
(Southern)
08-BE-0713-S Judge Karen Bowdre
Ed Patalas Total Body Essential
N. D. Ala.
(Southern)
08-IPJ-0758-S Judge Inge Johnson

3
Enrichment, Inc.;
Texamerican Food
Blending, Inc.
B. Chase Hicks Total Body Essential
Enrichment, Inc.;
Texamerican Food
Blending, Inc.
N. D. Ala.
(Southern)
08-PWG-0759-S Judge Paul Green
Jennifer Wood Total Body Essential
Enrichment, Inc.;
Texamerican Food
Blending, Inc.
N. D. Ala.
(Southern)
08-C-0827-S Judge Scott Coogler
Hazel White on behalf
of C.D.
Total Body Essential
Enrichment, Inc.;
Texamerican Food
Blending, Inc.
N. D. Ala.
(Southern)
08-P-0828-S Judge R. David Proctor
Flora Doss Total Body Essential
Enrichment, Inc.;
Texamerican Food
Blending, Inc.
N. D. Ala.
(Southern)
08-C-0949-S Judge Scott Coogler
John Snider Total Body Essential
Enrichment, Inc.;
N. D. Ala.
(Eastern)
08-HS-1009-E Judge Virginia Hopkins

4
Texamerican Food
Blending, Inc.; St.
John’s Nutrition
Marcella Sparks Total Body Essential
Enrichment, Inc.;
Texamerican Food
Blending, Inc.; St.
John’s Nutrition
N. D. Ala.
(Southern)
08-RBP-1010-E Judge Robert Propst
Susan Renee Taylor;
and Tony Taylor
Enrichment, 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
Enrichment, 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
Enrichment, Inc.;
Texamerican Food
N. D. Ala.
(Southern)
08-PWG-1094-S Judge Paul Green

5
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.;
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.
L. Kassner, Jr.
OF COUNSEL:
Archie C. Lamb, Jr.
F. Inge Johnstone

6
Tyrell F. Jordan
THE LAMB FIRM, LLC
2900 1st
Avenue South
Phone: (205) 324-4644
Fax: (205) 324-4649
E. Kirk Wood
WOOD LAW FIRM, LLC
P. O. Box 382434
(205) 612-0243
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

7
This is to certify that on this day of July , 2008, a copy of Plaintiffs’ Schedule of Actions was served
on the following:
Hand Arendall, LLC
Hand Arendall, LLC
P. O. Box 123
Sean C. Pierce
Carr Allison

8
505 20th
Suite 600-D Sparks)

9
and Tammy Slay)

______________________________
)
LITIGATION )
______________________________ )
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:
Hand Arendall, LLC
Hand Arendall, LLC
P. O. Box 123

2
Sean C. Pierce
Carr Allison
505 20th
Suite 600-D Sparks)
and Tammy Slay)

3
Clerk of the United States District (served with Motion For Transfer only)
Court for the Northern District of Florida
401 Southeast First Ave
Room 243
Gainesville, Florida 32601
BY CM/ECF
Clerk of the United States District (served with Motion For Transfer only)
Court for the Northern District of Alabama
1729 Fifth Avenue North
_________________________
OF COUNSEL

Jpml motion for transfer and consolidation

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Mais procurados

Mais procurados (20)

Semelhante a Jpml motion for transfer and consolidation

Semelhante a Jpml motion for transfer and consolidation (20)

Mais de mzamoralaw

Mais de mzamoralaw (20)

Jpml motion for transfer and consolidation