What recent multidistrict litigations has the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation chaired by Karen K. Caldwell centralized?
Executive summary
The public record supplied does not contain a clear, enumerated list of "recent multidistrict litigations" that the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) chaired by Judge Karen K. Caldwell has centralized; the materials explain her role as Chair and the Panel’s transfer authority but do not catalog specific, recent centralization decisions attributable to her chairmanship in isolation [1] [2]. The JPML issues transfer and centralization orders collectively, and locating particular recent MDLs requires consulting the Panel’s orders database and decision texts rather than biographical summaries [3] [4].
1. What the Chair does, and what “centralize” means
The Chair of the JPML presides over a seven-judge administrative panel that decides whether civil actions pending in two or more federal districts with common factual questions should be transferred to one district for coordinated pretrial proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 1407, a function designed to promote convenience and avoid duplicative discovery and inconsistent rulings [2] [5]. Judge Karen K. Caldwell has served as a member of the Panel since 2018 and as its Chair since 2019, meaning she leads the Panel that evaluates petitions to centralize cases into MDLs but does so as part of a collective body—actions require the concurrence of at least four members [1] [6].
2. How the Panel reaches centralization decisions and where authority actually lies
Section 1407 procedure obliges the JPML to determine whether the cases present a “multidistrict character” tied by common factual issues and whether centralization serves convenience and efficiency; those statutory and pragmatic criteria are applied by the Panel, not unilaterally by the Chair, and Panel practice discourages litigants from arguing the merits in Section 1407 briefing [7] [8]. The Panel typically issues detailed transfer orders and opinions explaining why cases were centralized, remanded, or declined, and those orders are the primary source for identifying which matters the Panel has centralized [9] [4].
3. What the provided reporting actually documents about recent centralizations
Among the documents provided, there is a specific JPML transfer-order file (MDL No. 3125) in which the court record notes that Judge Caldwell did not participate in that particular decision, which illustrates that Panel actions sometimes proceed without the Chair’s participation and that the Chair is not synonymous with the entire decision-making body [10]. Beyond that transfer order and the institutional descriptions of the JPML and Judge Caldwell’s biography, the supplied sources do not list a roster of recent MDLs centralized while Caldwell has been Chair or identify particular high-profile MDLs that she alone centralized; the sources focus on institutional function and biography rather than a case list [11] [1] [2].
4. Where to find definitive, up-to-date lists of MDLs centralizations and why that matters
To identify recent MDLs the Panel centralized while Caldwell has been Chair, the Panel’s official website provides pending-MDL pages and panel orders where each transfer order and accompanying opinion is posted, and legal databases such as FindLaw maintain searchable JPML decisions since 2019—those are the records that contain the granular, date-stamped centralization actions absent from biographical summaries [4] [12] [3]. Because JPML decisions are collegial and frequently explain member participation, an accurate inventory requires reviewing JPML transfer orders, which will indicate the MDL number, the subject matter, the transferee court, and any notations about individual judges’ participation [10] [4].
5. Assessment and transparency considerations
The Panel’s institutional structure means that attributing a centralization to “the Chair” risks overstating one judge’s role in a collective decision; the Chair administers and speaks for the Panel but concurrence rules and frequent notations of nonparticipation (as in MDL-3125) show the need to rely on individual JPML orders for precise attribution [6] [10]. The documents provided illuminate the proper research path—consult JPML orders and FindLaw’s JPML database for case-level detail—because the supplied reporting does not itself enumerate the specific, recent MDLs centralized under Caldwell’s chairmanship [12] [4].