SlideShare a Scribd company logo
1 of 22
Download to read offline
Case: 2:11-md-02226-DCR Doc #: 1305 Filed: 03/05/12 Page: 1 of 22 - Page ID#: 40066



                            UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                            EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
                                 NORTHERN DIVISION
                                     (at Covington)

                                                 )
   IN RE: DARVOCET, DARVON AND                   )
   PROPOXYPHENE PRODUCTS                         )
   LIABILITY LITIGATION                          )    Master File No. 2: 11-md-2226-DCR
                                                 )          MDL Docket No. 2226
                                                 )
                                                 )
   Esposito v. Xanodyne Pharm., Inc., et al.,    )      Civil Action No. 2:11-175-DCR
   Corso v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., et al.,       )      Civil Action No. 2:11-179-DCR
   Alix v. Eli Lilly and Company, et al.,        )      Civil Action No. 2:11-182-DCR
   Smith v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., )      Civil Action No. 2:11-183-DCR
   Gilbert v. Eli Lilly and Company, et al.,     )      Civil Action No. 2:11-184-DCR
   Hunsucker v. Xanodyne Pharm., Inc., et al., )        Civil Action No. 2:11-185-DCR
   West v. Qualitest Pharm., Inc., et al.,       )      Civil Action No. 2:11-186-DCR
   Trimboli v. Xanodyne Pharm., Inc., et al.,    )      Civil Action No. 2:11-189-DCR
   Eldredge v. Xanodyne Pharm., Inc., et al.,    )      Civil Action No. 2:11-190-DCR
   Kellehar v. Xanodyne Pharm., Inc., et al.,    )      Civil Action No. 2:11-191-DCR
   Hallaway v. Eli Lilly and Company, et al.,    )      Civil Action No. 2:11-195-DCR
   Lowe v. Xanodyne Pharm., Inc., et al.,        )      Civil Action No. 2:11-196-DCR
   Coney v. Xanodyne Pharm., Inc., et al.,       )      Civil Action No. 2:11-197-DCR
   Kinter v. MI Holdings, Inc., et al.,          )      Civil Action No. 2:11-199-DCR
   Rogers v. Xanodyne Pharm., Inc., et al.,      )      Civil Action No. 2:11-200-DCR
   R. Knight v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., et al.,   )      Civil Action No. 2:11-201-DCR
   Oniate v. Eli Lilly and Company, et al.,      )      Civil Action No. 2:11-206-DCR
   Germain v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., et al.,     )      Civil Action No. 2:11-209-DCR
   Simpson v. Qualitest Pharm., Inc., et al.,    )      Civil Action No. 2:11-210-DCR
   Cook v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., et al.,        )      Civil Action No. 2:11-212-DCR
   Lynch v. Xanodyne Pharm., Inc., et al.,       )      Civil Action No. 2:11-213-DCR
   Turner v. Watson Pharm. (NJ), Inc., et al.,   )      Civil Action No. 2:11-221-DCR
   Dickerson v. Eli Lilly and Company, et al., )        Civil Action No. 2:11-295-DCR
   Labit v. Xanodyne Pharm., Inc., et al.,       )      Civil Action No. 2:11-296-DCR
   Balben v. Xanodyne Pharm., Inc., et al.,      )      Civil Action No. 2:11-297-DCR
   Forrest v. Xanodyne Pharm., Inc., et al.,     )      Civil Action No. 2:11-298-DCR
   Noel v. Xanodyne Pharm., Inc., et al.,        )      Civil Action No. 2:11-299-DCR
   Green v. Xanodyne Pharm., Inc., et al.,       )      Civil Action No. 2:11-300-DCR
   Wheeler v. Xanodyne Pharm., Inc., et al.,     )      Civil Action No. 2:11-301-DCR
   P. Knight v. Xanodyne Pharm., Inc., et al.,   )      Civil Action No. 2:11-307-DCR
   Del Favero v. Xanodyne Pharm., Inc., et al., )       Civil Action No. 2:11-311-DCR


                                                -1-
Case: 2:11-md-02226-DCR Doc #: 1305 Filed: 03/05/12 Page: 2 of 22 - Page ID#: 40067




   Blackwell v. Xanodyne Pharm., Inc., et al.,   )        Civil Action No. 2:11-312-DCR
   Sandel v. Eli Lilly and Company, et al.,      )        Civil Action No. 2:11-325-DCR
   Miller v. Eli Lilly and Company, et al.,      )        Civil Action No. 2: 11-352-DCR

                                        *** *** *** ***

                 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING
                  GENERIC DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS

                                       *** *** *** ***

         This matter is pending for consideration of the joint Motion to Dismiss filed by

  Defendants Brenn Distribution, Inc.; Brenn Manufacturing, Inc.; Covidien, Inc.; Generics Bidco

  I, LLC; Generics Bidco II, LLC; Generics International (US Parent), Inc.; Generics International

  (US), Inc.; Mallinckrodt Holdings, LLC; Mallinckrodt, Inc.; Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc.;

  Mylan, Inc.; Propst Distribution, Inc.; Qualitest Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Teva Biopharmaceuticals

  USA, Inc.; Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.; Vintage Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Vintage

  Pharmaceuticals, LLC; Watson Pharmaceuticals (New Jersey), Inc.; and Watson

  Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (collectively, “the Generic Defendants”).1 [Record No. 383] Also pending

  is the Generic Defendants’ First Supplemental Motion to Dismiss. [Record No. 458] The

  Generic Defendants argue that the claims asserted against them are preempted by federal law

  pursuant to the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Pliva v. Mensing, 131 S. Ct. 2567 (2011).

  For the reasons explained below, their motions to dismiss will be granted.


         1
             Not all of the Generic Defendants have moved for dismissal in all cases covered by the
  current motions. Instead, the motions — and, therefore, this Memorandum Opinion and Order —
  relate to those cases and defendants identified in Appendix A [Record No. 383-1] and First
  Supplemental Appendix A [458-1] to the motions. [See Record No. 383, p. 2 n.1; Record No. 458,
  p. 1 n.1; see also Record No. 1038, p. 15 (seeking dismissal as set forth in Appendix A and First
  Supplemental Appendix A).]

                                                 -2-
Case: 2:11-md-02226-DCR Doc #: 1305 Filed: 03/05/12 Page: 3 of 22 - Page ID#: 40068



         I.      BACKGROUND2

         This multidistrict litigation (“MDL”) arises from injuries the plaintiffs or their decedents

  allegedly suffered as a result of ingesting propoxyphene, a prescription pain medication sold

  under the brand names Darvon and Darvocet as well as in generic form. Shortly before the MDL

  proceedings were transferred to this Court, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision

  in Mensing, holding that federal law, which requires warning labels on generic drugs to match

  those of the corresponding brand-name drugs, preempted the plaintiffs’ state-law failure-to-warn

  claims against generic drug manufacturers. See 131 S Ct. at 2572. Because state law placed a

  duty “on all drug manufacturers to adequately and safely label their products,” while federal law

  “prevented [generic] [m]anufacturers from independently changing their drugs’ safety labels,”

  id. at 2577, it was impossible for generic manufacturers to comply with both state and federal

  law. Id. at 2578. In other words, generic manufacturers’ state-law duty to strengthen the drug

  labels directly conflicted with their “ongoing federal duty of sameness.” Id. at 2575; see id. at

  2578. Thus, under the doctrine of impossibility preemption, the Supremacy Clause mandated

  that state law must “give way.” Id. at 2577.

         The plaintiffs in this MDL were permitted to amend their complaints following

  publication of the Mensing decision. [See Record No. 198] In their amended complaints, the

  plaintiffs generally allege the following claims against the Generic Defendants: design defect

  (strict liability), defect due to inadequate warning (strict liability), negligent design, negligence,



         2
         A more complete discussion of the facts underlying this action is contained in the Court’s
  Memorandum Opinion and Order, also entered this date, addressing Defendant Xanodyne
  Pharmaceuticals, Inc.’s consolidated motions to dismiss.

                                                   -3-
Case: 2:11-md-02226-DCR Doc #: 1305 Filed: 03/05/12 Page: 4 of 22 - Page ID#: 40069



  negligent failure to warn, fraudulent nondisclosure, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent

  misrepresentation, statutory negligence, breach of express warranty, and breach of implied

  warranty.3

         II.     ANALYSIS

         The plaintiffs maintain that Mensing is inapplicable to their amended claims, primarily

  because they “are not contending that the Generic Defendants should have added new,

  unapproved warnings about propoxyphene’s risks,” but rather “that the Generic Defendants

  knew their product was unreasonably dangerous and should have voluntarily withdrawn it from

  the market.”4 [Record No. 568, p. 13] Thus, the “central claim,” according to the plaintiffs, “is

  that Defendants wrongfully marketed an unreasonably dangerous product.” [Id.] But no matter

  how they frame their allegations, the plaintiffs cannot avoid Mensing’s effect.

                 A.      Wrongful Marketing

         According to the plaintiffs, their “wrongful marketing” claims include design defect,

  negligent design, negligence, and breach of implied warranty. [Id. at 15] They point to two

  Sixth Circuit decisions, Wimbush v. Wyeth, 619 F.3d 632 (6th Cir. 2010), and Tobin v. Astra



         3
             The parties cite the Amended Complaint filed in Alix v. Eli Lilly and Company, Civil
  Action No. 2:11-182 [Record No. 287], as representative of the plaintiffs’ amended complaints. [See
  Record No. 383-2, p. 21 n.11; Record No. 568, p. 9 n.1.] Accordingly, in this opinion, references
  to the plaintiffs’ claims are based on the Alix Amended Complaint.
         4
            Plaintiffs Yanise and Jackson Germain individually oppose the Generic Defendants’
  motion to dismiss on the ground that it is not timely. [See Record No. 571.] Specifically, they argue
  that Defendant Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. may not properly move to dismiss under Rule
  12(b)(6) because it has already filed an answer. [Id., p. 4] They acknowledge, however, that the
  Court may construe the motion as one for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c). [Id.]
  The Court finds that to be the appropriate course.

                                                  -4-
Case: 2:11-md-02226-DCR Doc #: 1305 Filed: 03/05/12 Page: 5 of 22 - Page ID#: 40070



  Pharmaceutical Products, Inc., 993 F.2d 528 (6th Cir. 1993), that supposedly constitute

  “controlling precedent” requiring the Court to find against preemption. [Record No. 568, p. 16]

  In Wimbush and Tobin, the Sixth Circuit concluded that state-law tort claims were not preempted

  by the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”). See 619 F.3d at 646; 993 F.2d at 537. Both

  cases were decided prior to Mensing, however. More importantly, neither involved a generic

  manufacturer.5

         The question in Wimbush and Tobin was whether initial approval of a drug by the federal

  Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) resulted in preemption of state-law tort claims based

  on the brand-name manufacturer’s alleged wrongdoing “in the process leading up

  to . . . approval.” Wimbush, 619 F.3d at 643; see id. at 642 (“As the district court framed it, the

  issue is whether a state-court finding that a manufacturer was negligent in bringing the drug to

  market conflicts or is inconsistent with the FDA’s subsequent approval of that drug for the

  market.”); Tobin, 993 F.2d at 537 (rejecting defendants’ contention that allowing state products

  liability claims amounted to “a mockery of the scientific analysis employed by the FDA and the

  Advisory Committee which conclusively found that [the drug] was efficacious” (internal

  quotation marks omitted)). Here, by contrast, the conflict between state and federal law arises

  out of the sameness requirement imposed on generic manufacturers by the FDCA after the drug

  is approved. As the Mensing Court recognized, this distinction is significant.




         5
            Likewise, all but one of the other cases cited by the plaintiffs on this point involved brand-
  name manufacturers, and all were decided before Mensing. [See Record No. 568, p. 19 (citing cases
  from the Second, Fourth, Fifth, and Tenth Circuits, as well as the Southern District of Indiana,
  District of New Hampshire, and Eastern District of Virginia).]

                                                    -5-
Case: 2:11-md-02226-DCR Doc #: 1305 Filed: 03/05/12 Page: 6 of 22 - Page ID#: 40071



         It is beyond dispute that the federal statutes and regulations that apply to brand-
         name drug manufacturers are meaningfully different than those that apply to
         generic drug manufacturers. Indeed, it is the special, and different, regulation of
         generic drugs that allowed the generic drug market to expand, bringing more
         drugs more quickly and cheaply to the public. But different federal statutes and
         regulations may, as here, lead to different pre-emption results.6

  131 S. Ct. at 2582; see id. at 2581 & n.8 (distinguishing Wyeth, 555 U.S. 555). In short, the

  Court agrees with the Generic Defendants that Wimbush and Tobin, “which involve different

  legal theories, implicate a different regulatory scheme, and were decided prior to Mensing, are

  inapposite.” [Record No. 1038, p. 10]

         This leaves the plaintiffs’ contention that there is no conflict between state and federal

  law (and thus, no preemption) because the Generic Defendants were always free to simply

  remove propoxyphene products from the market. [See Record No. 568, pp. 15-24.] The

  Mensing plaintiffs made the same argument, without success, in their petition for rehearing. See

  Respondents’ Petition for Rehearing, Pliva, Inc. v. Mensing, 131 S. Ct. 2567 (July 18, 2011)

  (No. 09-993), 2011 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 878, at *3-6. And on remand, the Eighth Circuit

  interpreted Mensing to encompass such claims, vacating the portion of its earlier opinion that

  embraced the failure-to-withdraw theory and denying the plaintiff’s motion to file a

  supplemental brief on that issue, among others. See Mensing v. Wyeth, Inc., 658 F.3d 867 (8th

  Cir. 2011), and 588 F.3d 603, 611 (8th Cir. 2009) (“The generic defendants were not compelled

  to market metoclopramide. If they realized their label was insufficient but did not believe they

  could even propose a label change, they could have simply stopped selling the product.”);


         6
           For this reason, Plaintiff Cook’s contention that the Court should follow Wyeth v. Levine,
  555 U.S. 555 (2009), which held that failure-to-warn claims against a brand-name drug manufacturer
  were not preempted, is without merit. [See Record No. 577.]

                                                  -6-
Case: 2:11-md-02226-DCR Doc #: 1305 Filed: 03/05/12 Page: 7 of 22 - Page ID#: 40072



  Appellant Gladys Mensing’s Motion for Leave to File a Supplemental Brief at 4-5, Mensing, 658

  F.3d 867 (Sept. 8, 2011) (No. 08-3850). The Sixth Circuit was likewise unpersuaded by the

  post-Mensing failure-to-withdraw argument. See Smith v. Wyeth, Inc., 657 F.3d 420, 423 (6th

  Cir. 2011); Appellants’ Supplemental Letter Brief Regarding Pliva, Inc. v. Mensing at 5-6,

  Smith, 657 F.3d 420 (Aug. 15, 2011) (Nos. 09-5460, 09-5466, 09-5509); see also Gross v. Pfizer,

  Inc., No. 10-cv-00110-AW, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134895, at *8-9 (D. Md. Nov. 22, 2011)

  (noting rejection of failure-to-withdraw argument in Mensing and Smith).

         While the plaintiffs attempt to get around Mensing by asserting “failure to withdraw”

  rather than failure to warn, they have not demonstrated that their so-called wrongful marketing

  claims escape preemption.7 The claims — strict liability design defect, negligent design,

  negligent marketing, and breach of implied warranty — are all based on the allegedly defective

  design of the drug, which the Generic Defendants, bound by their “ongoing federal duty of

  sameness,” were powerless to change. Mensing, 131 S. Ct. at 2575. And as the Generic

  Defendants observe, the idea that they should have simply stopped selling propoxyphene is an

  oversimplified solution that could apply anytime the issue of impossibility preemption arises:

  avoid a conflict between state and federal law by withdrawing from the regulated conduct

  altogether. Cf. id. at 2579 (“Accepting [the plaintiffs’] argument would render conflict pre-

  emption largely meaningless because it would make most conflicts between state and federal law



         7
           That the plaintiffs have merely repackaged their failure-to-warn claims is evident from the
  second paragraph of the Alix Amended Complaint, which summarizes the new allegations as
  follows: “Plaintiff alleges that Defendants knowingly or negligently marketed and sold defectively
  designed Propoxyphene Products without adequate warnings.” [Record No. 287, p. 2 ¶ 2 (emphasis
  added)]

                                                  -7-
Case: 2:11-md-02226-DCR Doc #: 1305 Filed: 03/05/12 Page: 8 of 22 - Page ID#: 40073



  illusory.”). [See Record No. 383-2, p. 32; Record No. 1038, p. 9.] Moreover, as noted

  previously, the failure-to-withdraw argument was rejected by the Mensing Court, the Eighth

  Circuit following Mensing’s remand, and the Sixth Circuit in Smith. This Court likewise rejects

  the plaintiffs’ arguments. Accordingly, these claims will be dismissed.

                B.     Failure to Warn

         The plaintiffs assert that Mensing does not preclude warning claims premised on the

  Generic Defendants’ alleged failure to timely change the labeling on their propoxyphene

  products after July 2009, when the FDA ordered Xanodyne to strengthen the label. [See Record

  No. 568, pp. 31-33.] At least two courts have found, since Mensing, that generic manufacturers

  may be liable for failure to warn if the FDA had already approved a label change — i.e., if it

  would not have been impossible for the generic manufacturer to comply with both state and

  federal law. See Lyman v. Pfizer, Inc., No. 2:09-cv-262, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13185, at *16-

  19 (D. Vt. Feb. 3, 2012); Fisher v. Pelstring, No. 4:09-cv-00252-TLW, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

  116162, at *12 (D.S.C. Sept. 30, 2011). Both cases, however, involved metoclopramide (the

  drug at issue in Mensing), which the generic manufacturer acknowledged did not bear a

  strengthened warning approved by the FDA in 2004. See Fisher, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

  116162, at *12 (“[The] possible deviation in PLIVA’s label for generic metoclopramide, which

  both parties indicate exists, is sufficient to conclude the plaintiffs’ claims are not entirely

  preempted.” (emphasis added)).

         There is no such consensus in this case. Instead, the sole indication that a failure to

  update occurred is the following vague allegation:



                                                -8-
Case: 2:11-md-02226-DCR Doc #: 1305 Filed: 03/05/12 Page: 9 of 22 - Page ID#: 40074



         The FDA mandate [to Xanodyne] likewise effectively required the Generic
         Defendants to issue the Black Box warning and label changes, but upon
         information and belief, the Generic Defendants did not timely implement the
         Black Box warning or revise the labels for their [p]ropoxyphene [p]roducts, or
         publish the information in the [Physicians’ Desk Reference], or communicate the
         information to prescribing physicians in Dear Health Care Professional letters or
         by other means.

  [See Record No. 287, p. 43 ¶ 205; see also id., p. 19 ¶ 96, p. 51 ¶ 241, p. 57 ¶ 258 (same).]

         Regardless of any preemption issues, the plaintiffs are still subject to basic pleading

  requirements. Thus, their complaints “must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true,

  to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949

  (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). The plausibility

  standard is met “when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the

  reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (citing

  Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). It requires “more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted

  unlawfully.” Id.

         Under this standard, the plaintiffs’ conclusory allegations, which consist of “pure

  conjecture” that generic propoxyphene labels were not timely updated, fail. In re Fosamax

  (Alendronate Sodium) Prods. Liab. Litig. (No. II), No. 08-008 (GEB-LHG), 2011 U.S. Dist.

  LEXIS 135006, at *38 (D.N.J. Nov. 21, 2011) (“That a failure to timely update [drug] labeling

  ‘could have occurred’ is nothing ‘more than a sheer possibility’ and is not ‘sufficient to state a

  claim for relief.’” (quoting Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949)). Here, the complaints do not: (1) identify

  which of the Generic Defendant(s) allegedly failed to make the label changes; (2) elaborate on

  the allegation of untimeliness (e.g., length of delay or why it was unreasonable); or (3) explain



                                                  -9-
Case: 2:11-md-02226-DCR Doc #: 1305 Filed: 03/05/12 Page: 10 of 22 - Page ID#: 40075



  how any alleged failure to update injured the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs thus have offered “nothing

  ‘more than a sheer possibility’” that one or more of the Generic Defendants may have failed to

  timely update the labeling on propoxyphene products after July 2009 and that the plaintiffs were

  injured as a result. Id. (quoting Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949). Preemption issues aside, these claims

  cannot withstand the Generic Defendants’ motion to dismiss.8 To the extent the plaintiffs seek

  to hold the Generic Defendants liable for failing to communicate the 2009 label change to health

  care professionals, their allegations are similarly deficient.9

         Finally, the plaintiffs assert that Defendants Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Mylan, Inc.

  (collectively “Mylan”); and Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. are not protected by Mensing because

  they were the reference listed drug (“RLD”) holders for certain propoxyphene products. [See

  Record No. 568, pp. 35-37.] The Generic Defendants do not dispute that Mylan and Watson

  were RLD holders. However, they point to FDA publications indicating that the FDA, not the

  RLD holder, controls label changes if the new drug application (“NDA”) holder has removed

  its product from the market for reasons other than safety or effectiveness.              See, e.g.,


         8
           It appears that Mensing would apply to the failure-to-update claims in any event, as the
  Mensing Court, the Eighth Circuit on remand in Mensing, and the Sixth Circuit in Smith were
  presented with similar arguments and nevertheless found the plaintiffs’ failure-to-warn claims to be
  preempted.
         9
            In any event, the Mensing Court, adopting the FDA’s interpretation of its regulations,
  recognized that generic manufacturers are not free to send “Dear Doctor” letters containing new
  drug warning information, as such letters “would inaccurately imply a therapeutic difference
  between the brand and generic drugs and thus could be impermissibly ‘misleading.’” 131 S. Ct. at
  2576 (citing 21 C.F.R. § 314.150(b)(3)). Several courts have held failure-to-communicate claims
  to be preempted in light of this statement from Mensing. See, e.g., Gross, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
  134895, at *10-11; In re Fosamax, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135006, at *29-30. Furthermore, as the
  Generic Defendants note, similar claims failed to sway either the Eighth Circuit on remand in
  Mensing or the Sixth Circuit in Smith. [See Record No. 383-2, p. 26.]

                                                 -10-
Case: 2:11-md-02226-DCR Doc #: 1305 Filed: 03/05/12 Page: 11 of 22 - Page ID#: 40076



  Determination That Brethine (Terbutaline Sulfate) Injection Was Not Withdrawn from Sale for

  Reasons of Safety or Effectiveness, 72 Fed. Reg. 39,629 (July 12, 2007) (“If the FDA determines

  that labeling for this drug product should be revised to meet current standards, the Agency will

  advise [Abbreviated New Drug Application] applicants to submit such labeling.”). Further, they

  cite a recent federal case in which the same argument was rejected. See Moore v. Mylan, Inc.,

  No. 1:11-CV-03037-MHS, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6897, at *20-25 (N.D. Ga. Jan. 5, 2012). The

  plaintiffs, meanwhile, provide no authority to support their contention that when a generic drug

  manufacturer becomes an RLD holder, it is thereby empowered to independently change the

  drug’s warning label. Thus, the Court is unpersuaded that Mylan and Watson are subject to

  liability based on their status as RLD holders.

                C.      Misrepresentation, Fraud, Consumer Protection, Express Warranty,
                        and Statutory Negligence

         All remaining claims relate to the sufficiency of the warnings on propoxyphene products

  and, therefore, are preempted in accordance with Mensing. As the plaintiffs admit, their fraud,

  misrepresentation, and consumer-protection claims challenge label content. [See Record No.

  568, p. 39 n.20 (“Plaintiffs have alleged that these claims relate to misrepresentations on the

  products[’] labeling . . . .”); see Record No. 287, p. 62 ¶ 272 (describing representations

  allegedly made by the Generic Defendants “in their instructional materials and labeling”); see

  also id., p. 67 ¶ 287 (same).] Because the Generic Defendants were required to conform their

  labeling to that of the brand-name drugs, they could not have corrected any alleged

  misrepresentation without running afoul of federal law. Cf. Mensing, 131 S. Ct. at 2577-78.




                                                -11-
Case: 2:11-md-02226-DCR Doc #: 1305 Filed: 03/05/12 Page: 12 of 22 - Page ID#: 40077



  Likewise, any express warranty contained in the labeling was beyond the Generic Defendants’

  control.10 These claims are therefore preempted per Mensing.

         The plaintiffs’ claim of statutory negligence is also preempted. Although they state in

  their response that this claim “assert[s] only traditional state common law causes of action”

  [Record No. 568, p. 41], as described in the complaint, it is premised on the Generic Defendants’

  alleged “violat[ion of] federal standards for the sale of prescription drugs set forth in the

  [FDCA].” [Record No. 287, p. 69 ¶ 300; see id., p. 70 ¶ 301 (same)] The count includes a

  laundry list of federal regulations, mostly relating to labeling or “misbranding,” allegedly

  violated by the Generic Defendants. [See id., pp. 70-71 ¶¶ 301(a)-(i).] Such claims are

  precluded by Mensing insofar as they challenge the content of generic drug labels.

         To the extent the plaintiffs allege that the Generic Defendants failed to comply with the

  FDCA or FDA regulations, their claim is preempted pursuant to Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs’ Legal

  Committee, 531 U.S. 341 (2001). In Buckman, the Supreme Court held that because the

  exclusive power to enforce the FDCA rests with the FDA, state-law claims “based on failure to

  properly communicate with the FDA” were preempted. Mensing, 131 S. Ct. at 2578 (citing

  Buckman, 531 U.S. 341). Because there is no private right to enforce the FDCA, see Buckman,

  531 U.S. at 349 n.4, the plaintiffs’ statutory negligence claim, which is based solely on alleged

  FDCA violations, must fail. Finally, the plaintiffs acknowledge that if their underlying tort

  claims are preempted, their derivative claims — e.g., wrongful death, survivorship, unjust


         10
             Again, the plaintiffs insist that precedent is on their side but cite cases that are not on
  point: Altria Group, Inc. v. Good, 555 U.S. 70 (2008), Bates v. Dow Agrosciences LLC, 544 U.S.
  431 (2005), and Cipollone v. Liggett Group, 505 U.S. 504 (1992), dealt with express preemption,
  not impossibility preemption.

                                                  -12-
Case: 2:11-md-02226-DCR Doc #: 1305 Filed: 03/05/12 Page: 13 of 22 - Page ID#: 40078



  enrichment, and loss of consortium — likewise cannot survive the Generic Defendants’ motions

  to dismiss. [See Record No. 568, p. 42.]

                 D.      Discovery/Amendment of Complaints

         The Court rejects the plaintiffs’ contention that they should be allowed discovery and

  another chance to amend their complaints. “Plaintiffs [are] not entitled to an advisory opinion

  from the Court informing them of the deficiencies of the complaint and then an opportunity to

  cure those deficiencies.” Winget v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 537 F.3d 565, 573 (6th Cir.

  2008) (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted). Under Iqbal, plaintiffs are not

  permitted to conduct discovery in order to fix factually deficient complaints, even where the

  necessary information is within the defendant’s exclusive possession. New Albany Tractor, Inc.

  v. Louisville Tractor, Inc., 650 F.3d 1046, 1051 (6th Cir. 2011) (citing Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1954).

  Rather, in such cases, dismissal with prejudice is proper. See id. at 1053.

         Furthermore, the Court should deny leave to amend a pleading if amendment would be

  futile. Winget, 537 F.3d at 573. Counsel for the plaintiffs acknowledged at oral argument that

  if the Court found their claims to be preempted, there would be no reason to amend the

  complaints. Likewise, insofar as certain plaintiffs individually opposed the Generic Defendants’

  motions to dismiss on the ground that they had not had an opportunity to amend their complaints

  to conform to the “master complaint” (i.e., the Alix Amended Complaint), the futility of such an

  amendment renders their request moot. [See Record No. 574.]

         III.    CONCLUSION

         In accordance with this memorandum opinion, it is hereby



                                                 -13-
Case: 2:11-md-02226-DCR Doc #: 1305 Filed: 03/05/12 Page: 14 of 22 - Page ID#: 40079



         ORDERED that the Generic Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [MDL Record No. 383] and

  First Supplemental Motion to Dismiss [MDL Record No. 458] are GRANTED. Subject to

  previous orders,11 the claims asserted against the following defendants in the following actions

  are DISMISSED, with prejudice:

         •      [Civil Action No. 2: 11-175; Record No. 85]: Defendant Teva Pharmaceuticals

                USA, Inc.;

         •      [Civil Action No. 2: 11-179; Record No. 49]: Defendant Teva Pharmaceuticals

                USA, Inc.;

         •      [Civil Action No. 2: 11-182; Record No. 76]: Defendant Qualitest

                Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Defendant Vintage Pharmaceuticals, Inc.;

         •      [Civil Action No. 2: 11-183; Record No. 45]: Defendant Propst Distribution, Inc.,

                formerly known as Qualitest Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Defendant Mylan

                Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Defendant Teva Biopharmaceuticals USA, Inc.; and

                Defendant Vintage Pharmaceuticals, LLC;

         •      [Civil Action No. 2: 11-184; Record No. 32]: Defendant Brenn Distribution, Inc.,

                formerly known as Qualitest Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Defendant Brenn

                Manufacturing, Inc., formerly known as Vintage Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Defendant

                Vintage Pharmaceuticals, LLC; Defendant Generics International (US), Inc.;

                Defendant Generics Bidco I, LLC; Defendant Generics Bidco II, LLC; and

                Defendant Generics International (US Parent), Inc.;

         11
             The Court recognizes that some of the defendants listed have already been dismissed
  voluntarily.

                                               -14-
Case: 2:11-md-02226-DCR Doc #: 1305 Filed: 03/05/12 Page: 15 of 22 - Page ID#: 40080



        •     [Civil Action No. 2: 11-185; Record Nos. 68 and 105]: Defendants Mylan Inc.;

              Defendant Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Defendant Teva Pharmaceuticals USA,

              Inc.; Defendant Vintage Pharmaceuticals, LLC; Defendant Generics International

              (US), Inc.; Defendant Generics Bidco I, LLC; Defendant Generics Bidco II, LLC;

              Defendant Generics International (US Parent), Inc.; Defendant Brenn

              Distribution, Inc., formerly known as Qualitest Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Defendant

              Propst Distribution, Inc., formerly known as Qualitest Pharmaceuticals, Inc.;

              Defendant Brenn Manufacturing, Inc., formerly known as Vintage

              Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Defendant Covidien Inc.; and Defendant Mallinckrodt Inc.;

        •     [Civil Action No. 2: 11-186; Record Nos. 51 and 89]: Defendant Teva

              Biopharmaceuticals USA, Inc., misnamed as Teva Biopharmaceuticals, Inc.;

              Defendant Covidien Inc.; Defendant Mallinckrodt Inc.; Defendant Qualitest

              Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Brenn Distribution, Inc., formerly known as Qualitest

              Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Propst Distribution, Inc., formerly known as Qualitest

              Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Brenn Manufacturing, Inc., formerly known as Vintage

              Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Mylan, Inc.; Vintage Pharmaceuticals, LLC; Generics

              International (US), Inc.; Generics Bidco I, LLC; Generics Bidco II, LLC;

              Generics International (US Parent), Inc.; Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and Teva

              Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.;

        •     [Civil Action No. 2: 11-189; Record Nos. 68 and 98]: Defendant Qualitest

              Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Defendant Propst Distribution, Inc., formerly known as



                                            -15-
Case: 2:11-md-02226-DCR Doc #: 1305 Filed: 03/05/12 Page: 16 of 22 - Page ID#: 40081



              Qualitest Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Defendant Generics International (US), Inc.;

              Defendant Generics International (US Parent), Inc.; Defendant Generics Bidco I,

              LLC; Defendant Vintage Pharmaceuticals, LLC; Defendant Generics Bidco II,

              LLC; Defendant Vintage Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Defendant Brenn Manufacturing,

              Inc., formerly known as Vintage Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and Defendant Brenn

              Distribution, Inc., formerly known as Qualitest Pharmaceuticals, Inc.;

        •     [Civil Action No. 2: 11-190; Record Nos. 78, 99 and 100]: Defendant Generics

              Bidco I, LLC; Defendant Vintage Pharmaceuticals, LLC; Defendant Propst

              Distribution, Inc., formerly known as Qualitest Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Defendant

              Covidien, Inc.; Defendant Mallinckrodt, Inc.; Defendant Generics International

              (US), Inc.; Defendant Generics International (US Parent), Inc.; Defendant

              Generics Bidco II, LLC; Defendant Brenn Manufacturing, Inc., formerly known

              as Vintage Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Defendant Brenn Distribution, Inc., formerly

              known    as   Qualitest   Pharmaceuticals,   Inc.;   and   Defendant     Vintage

              Pharmaceuticals, Inc.;

        •     [Civil Action No. 2: 11-191; Record Nos. 56 and 98]: Defendant Mylan Inc.;

              Defendant Brenn Distribution, Inc., formerly known as Qualitest Pharmaceuticals,

              Inc.; Defendant Propst Distribution, Inc., formerly known as Qualitest

              Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Defendant Brenn Manufacturing, Inc., formerly known as

              Vintage Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Defendant Vintage Pharmaceuticals, LLC;

              Defendant Generics International (US), Inc.; Defendant Generics Bidco I, LLC;



                                            -16-
Case: 2:11-md-02226-DCR Doc #: 1305 Filed: 03/05/12 Page: 17 of 22 - Page ID#: 40082



              Defendant Generics Bidco II, LLC; Defendant Generics International (US

              Parent), Inc.; Defendant Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.; Defendant Watson

              Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Defendant Teva Biopharmaceuticals USA, Inc., misnamed

              Teva Biopharmaceuticals, Inc.; Defendant Covidien Inc.; and Defendant

              Mallinckrodt Inc.;

        •     [Civil Action No. 2: 11-195; Record Nos. 71 and 87]: Defendant Qualitest

              Pharmaceuticals; Defendant Vintage Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Defendant Vintage

              Pharmaceuticals, LLC; Defendant Generics International (US), Inc.; Defendant

              Generics Bidco I, LLC; Defendant Generics Bidco II, LLC; Defendant Generics

              International (US Parent), Inc.; Defendant Mylan Inc.; Defendant Watson

              Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Defendant Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.; Defendant

              Teva Biopharmaceuticals USA, Inc., misnamed as Teva Biopharmaceuticals, Inc.;

              Defendant Brenn Distribution, Inc., formerly known as Qualitest Pharmaceuticals,

              Inc.; Defendant Propst Distribution, Inc., formerly known as Qualitest

              Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Defendant Covidien Inc.; and Defendant Mallinckrodt Inc.;

        •     [Civil Action No. 2: 11-196; Record Nos. 41 and 51]: Defendant Covidien, Inc.

              and Defendant Mallinckrodt Holdings, LLC;

        •     [Civil Action No. 2: 11-197; Record Nos. 66 and 104]: Defendant Teva

              Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.; Defendant Mylan Inc.; Defendant Brenn Distribution,

              Inc., formerly known as Qualitest Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Defendant Propst

              Distribution, Inc., formerly known as Qualitest Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Defendant



                                            -17-
Case: 2:11-md-02226-DCR Doc #: 1305 Filed: 03/05/12 Page: 18 of 22 - Page ID#: 40083



              Brenn Manufacturing, Inc., formerly known as Vintage Pharmaceuticals, Inc.;

              Defendant Vintage Pharmaceuticals, LLC; Defendant Generics International

              (US), Inc.; Defendant Generics Bidco I, LLC; Defendant Generics Bidco II, LLC;

              Defendant Generics International (US Parent), Inc.; Defendant Watson

              Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Defendant Covidien Inc.; Defendant Mallinckrodt Inc.; and

              Defendant     Teva    Biopharmaceuticals       USA,    misnamed        as   Teva

              Biopharmaceuticals, Inc.;

        •     [Civil Action No. 2: 11-199; Record Nos. 36 and 40]: Defendant Covidien, Inc.

              and Defendant Mallinckrodt, Inc.;

        •     [Civil Action No. 2: 11-200; Record No. 41]: Defendant Teva Pharmaceuticals

              USA, Inc.; Defendant Vintage Pharmaceuticals, LLC; Defendant Generics

              International (US), Inc.; Defendant Generics Bidco I, LLC; and Defendant

              Generics International (US Parent), Inc.;

        •     [Civil Action No. 2: 11-201; Record No. 41]: Defendant Teva Pharmaceuticals

              USA, Inc.;

        •     [Civil Action No. 2: 11-206; Record No. 67]: Defendant Vintage

              Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Defendant Qualitest Pharmaceuticals, Inc.;

        •     [Civil Action No. 2: 11-209; Record No. 37]: Defendant Teva Pharmaceuticals

              USA, Inc.;

        •     [Civil Action No. 2: 11-210; Record No. 48]: Defendant Vintage

              Pharmaceuticals, LLC and Defendant Generics Bidco I, LLC;



                                            -18-
Case: 2:11-md-02226-DCR Doc #: 1305 Filed: 03/05/12 Page: 19 of 22 - Page ID#: 40084



        •     [Civil Action No. 2: 11-212; Record No. 32]: Defendant Vintage

              Pharmaceuticals, LLC and Defendant Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.;

        •     [Civil Action No. 2: 11-213; Record No. 58 and 79]: Defendant Qualitest

              Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Defendant Generics Bidco II, LLC; Defendant Vintage

              Pharmaceuticals LLC; Defendant Generics International (US), Inc.; Defendant

              Generics Bidco I, LLC; Generics International (US Parent), Inc.; Defendant

              Brenn Manufacturing, Inc., formerly known as Vintage Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and

              Defendant Brenn Distribution, Inc., formerly known as Qualitest Pharmaceuticals,

              Inc.;

        •     [Civil Action No. 2: 11-221; Record No. 30]: Defendant Watson Pharmaceuticals

              (New Jersey), Inc.;

        •     [Civil Action No. 2: 11-295; Record Nos. 17, 49, and 56]: Defendant Generics

              Bidco II, LLC; Defendant Vintage Pharmaceuticals, LLC; Defendant Generics

              International (US), Inc.; Defendant Generics Bidco I, LLC; Defendant Generics

              International (US Parent), Inc.; Defendant Mylan Inc.; Defendant Qualitest

              Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Defendant Brenn Manufacturing, Inc., formerly known as

              Vintage Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and Defendant Brenn Distribution, Inc., formerly

              known as Qualitest Pharmaceuticals, Inc.;

        •     [Civil Action No. 2: 11-296; Record Nos. 35, 57, 67, and 73]: Defendant Mylan

              Inc.; Defendant Generics Bidco II, LLC; Defendant Teva Pharmaceuticals USA,




                                            -19-
Case: 2:11-md-02226-DCR Doc #: 1305 Filed: 03/05/12 Page: 20 of 22 - Page ID#: 40085



              Inc.; Defendant Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Defendant Mylan Pharmaceuticals

              Inc.; Defendant Covidien Inc.; and Defendant Mallinckrodt Inc.;

        •     [Civil Action No. 2: 11-297; Record Nos. 37, 60, and 75]: Defendant Mylan Inc.;

              Defendant Generics Bidco II, LLC; Defendant Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.;

              Defendant Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Defendant Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.;

              Defendant Covidien Inc.; and Defendant Mallinckrodt Inc.;

        •     [Civil Action No. 2: 11-298; Record Nos. 31, 52, and 69]: Defendant Mylan Inc.;

              Defendant Generics Bidco II, LLC; Defendant Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.;

              Defendant Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Defendant Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.;

              Defendant Covidien Inc.; and Defendant Mallinckrodt Inc.;

        •     [Civil Action No. 2: 11-299; Record Nos. 31, 52, and 69]: Defendant Mylan Inc.;

              Defendant Generics Bidco II, LLC; Defendant Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.;

              Defendant Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Defendant Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.;

              Defendant Covidien Inc.; and Defendant Mallinckrodt Inc.;

        •     [Civil Action No. 2: 11-300; Record Nos. 33, 55, 65, and 70]: Defendant Mylan

              Inc.; Defendant Generics Bidco II, LLC; Defendant Teva Pharmaceuticals USA,

              Inc.; Defendant Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Defendant Mylan Pharmaceuticals

              Inc.; Defendant Covidien Inc.; and Defendant Mallinckrodt Inc.;

        •     [Civil Action No. 2: 11-301; Record Nos. 31, 52, and 69]: Defendant Mylan Inc.;

              Defendant Generics Bidco II, LLC; Defendant Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.;




                                            -20-
Case: 2:11-md-02226-DCR Doc #: 1305 Filed: 03/05/12 Page: 21 of 22 - Page ID#: 40086



                Defendant Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Defendant Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.;

                Defendant Covidien Inc.; and Defendant Mallinckrodt Inc.;

         •      [Civil Action No. 2: 11-307; Record No. 15]: Defendant Brenn Distribution, Inc.,

                formerly known as Qualitest Pharmaceuticals, Inc.;

         •      [Civil Action No. 2: 11-311; Record No. 16] Defendant Brenn Distribution, Inc.,

                formerly known as Qualitest Pharmaceuticals, Inc.;

         •      [Civil Action No. 2: 11-312; Record No. 15]: Defendant Brenn Distribution, Inc.,

                formerly known as Qualitest Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and

         •      [Civil Action No. 2: 11-325; Record No. 8]: Defendant Qualitest Pharmaceuticals,

                Inc.

         Additionally, the motions to dismiss filed by Defendants Covidien, Inc. and Mallinckrodt,

  Inc. [MDL Record No. 674] and Defendants Mylan, Inc. and Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. [MDL

  Record No. 684] in Civil Action No. 2: 11-352, which are based on the same arguments

  addressed herein, are likewise GRANTED. The claims asserted against Defendants Covidien,

  Inc.; Mallinckrodt, Inc.; Mylan, Inc.; and Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. by Plaintiff Marcia Miller

  are DISMISSED, with prejudice.

         In light of the Court’s resolution of the Generic Defendants’ joint motions to dismiss, the

  supplemental Motions to Dismiss filed by Defendants Covidien, Inc.; Mallinckrodt, Inc.; and/or

  Mallinckrodt Holdings, LLC [MDL Record Nos. 459, 469, 474, 542, 544, 546, 555, 557, and

  559]; Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. [MDL Record Nos. 462, 561, 562, 563, 564, 565, and




                                                -21-
Case: 2:11-md-02226-DCR Doc #: 1305 Filed: 03/05/12 Page: 22 of 22 - Page ID#: 40087



  566]; Teva Biopharmaceuticals USA, Inc. [MDL Record No. 567]; and Mylan, Inc. and/or

  Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. [MDL Record Nos. 503, 517, and 520] are DENIED as moot.

         Finally, because the plaintiffs’ proposed First Supplemental and Amended Complaints

  in Civil Action Nos. 2: 11-307, 2: 11-311, and 2: 11-312 seek to assert claims against defendants

  dismissed from this action under the rationale set forth above and in other opinions issued this

  date, their motions to file First Supplemental Amended Complaints [MDL Record Nos. 1111,

  1113, and 1114] are DENIED.

         This 5th day of March, 2012.




                                                -22-

More Related Content

What's hot

07/22/19 - LAWSUIT Dr Ana Velez & Dr Michael Howard vs Gilead Sciences Inc-Hi...
07/22/19 - LAWSUIT Dr Ana Velez & Dr Michael Howard vs Gilead Sciences Inc-Hi...07/22/19 - LAWSUIT Dr Ana Velez & Dr Michael Howard vs Gilead Sciences Inc-Hi...
07/22/19 - LAWSUIT Dr Ana Velez & Dr Michael Howard vs Gilead Sciences Inc-Hi...VogelDenise
 
2013 01-03-fresenius-mdl-plaintiff-response
2013 01-03-fresenius-mdl-plaintiff-response2013 01-03-fresenius-mdl-plaintiff-response
2013 01-03-fresenius-mdl-plaintiff-responsemzamoralaw
 
United Western Bank v Office of Thrift Supervision-1
United Western Bank v Office of Thrift Supervision-1United Western Bank v Office of Thrift Supervision-1
United Western Bank v Office of Thrift Supervision-1Liana Prieto
 
Pro se plaintiff, “louis charles hamilton ii”, co plaintiff(s) “united states...
Pro se plaintiff, “louis charles hamilton ii”, co plaintiff(s) “united states...Pro se plaintiff, “louis charles hamilton ii”, co plaintiff(s) “united states...
Pro se plaintiff, “louis charles hamilton ii”, co plaintiff(s) “united states...Louis Charles Hamilton II
 
Futch Vs Aig
Futch Vs AigFutch Vs Aig
Futch Vs AigAIGdocs
 
60 Minutes and New England Compounding Pharmacy
60 Minutes and New England Compounding Pharmacy60 Minutes and New England Compounding Pharmacy
60 Minutes and New England Compounding Pharmacymzamoralaw
 
Chad Green adv. New England Compounding Pharmacy
Chad Green adv. New England Compounding PharmacyChad Green adv. New England Compounding Pharmacy
Chad Green adv. New England Compounding Pharmacymzamoralaw
 
Vioxx Litigation Strategy
Vioxx Litigation StrategyVioxx Litigation Strategy
Vioxx Litigation StrategyAnapol Weiss
 
Lovenox trial scheduling
Lovenox trial schedulingLovenox trial scheduling
Lovenox trial schedulingJames Hilbert
 
NBI, Inc. and William J. Amann, Esq. presents: The Automatic Stay and Bank...
NBI, Inc. and William J. Amann, Esq. presents:  The  Automatic  Stay and Bank...NBI, Inc. and William J. Amann, Esq. presents:  The  Automatic  Stay and Bank...
NBI, Inc. and William J. Amann, Esq. presents: The Automatic Stay and Bank...William J. Amann
 
Defendants dismas charties, inc., ana gispert, derek thomas and lashanda adam...
Defendants dismas charties, inc., ana gispert, derek thomas and lashanda adam...Defendants dismas charties, inc., ana gispert, derek thomas and lashanda adam...
Defendants dismas charties, inc., ana gispert, derek thomas and lashanda adam...Cocoselul Inaripat
 

What's hot (16)

07/22/19 - LAWSUIT Dr Ana Velez & Dr Michael Howard vs Gilead Sciences Inc-Hi...
07/22/19 - LAWSUIT Dr Ana Velez & Dr Michael Howard vs Gilead Sciences Inc-Hi...07/22/19 - LAWSUIT Dr Ana Velez & Dr Michael Howard vs Gilead Sciences Inc-Hi...
07/22/19 - LAWSUIT Dr Ana Velez & Dr Michael Howard vs Gilead Sciences Inc-Hi...
 
2013 01-03-fresenius-mdl-plaintiff-response
2013 01-03-fresenius-mdl-plaintiff-response2013 01-03-fresenius-mdl-plaintiff-response
2013 01-03-fresenius-mdl-plaintiff-response
 
United Western Bank v Office of Thrift Supervision-1
United Western Bank v Office of Thrift Supervision-1United Western Bank v Office of Thrift Supervision-1
United Western Bank v Office of Thrift Supervision-1
 
Pro se plaintiff, “louis charles hamilton ii”, co plaintiff(s) “united states...
Pro se plaintiff, “louis charles hamilton ii”, co plaintiff(s) “united states...Pro se plaintiff, “louis charles hamilton ii”, co plaintiff(s) “united states...
Pro se plaintiff, “louis charles hamilton ii”, co plaintiff(s) “united states...
 
Futch Vs Aig
Futch Vs AigFutch Vs Aig
Futch Vs Aig
 
60 Minutes and New England Compounding Pharmacy
60 Minutes and New England Compounding Pharmacy60 Minutes and New England Compounding Pharmacy
60 Minutes and New England Compounding Pharmacy
 
Chad Green adv. New England Compounding Pharmacy
Chad Green adv. New England Compounding PharmacyChad Green adv. New England Compounding Pharmacy
Chad Green adv. New England Compounding Pharmacy
 
Vioxx Litigation Strategy
Vioxx Litigation StrategyVioxx Litigation Strategy
Vioxx Litigation Strategy
 
Joint shedilling report
Joint shedilling reportJoint shedilling report
Joint shedilling report
 
Doc.29
Doc.29Doc.29
Doc.29
 
Lovenox trial scheduling
Lovenox trial schedulingLovenox trial scheduling
Lovenox trial scheduling
 
NBI, Inc. and William J. Amann, Esq. presents: The Automatic Stay and Bank...
NBI, Inc. and William J. Amann, Esq. presents:  The  Automatic  Stay and Bank...NBI, Inc. and William J. Amann, Esq. presents:  The  Automatic  Stay and Bank...
NBI, Inc. and William J. Amann, Esq. presents: The Automatic Stay and Bank...
 
Goodcat v State of Indiana
Goodcat v State of IndianaGoodcat v State of Indiana
Goodcat v State of Indiana
 
Doc 39
Doc 39Doc 39
Doc 39
 
Defendants dismas charties, inc., ana gispert, derek thomas and lashanda adam...
Defendants dismas charties, inc., ana gispert, derek thomas and lashanda adam...Defendants dismas charties, inc., ana gispert, derek thomas and lashanda adam...
Defendants dismas charties, inc., ana gispert, derek thomas and lashanda adam...
 
Pdf 11
Pdf 11Pdf 11
Pdf 11
 

Viewers also liked

sucedio en cuenca
sucedio en cuencasucedio en cuenca
sucedio en cuencaconillet
 
Podcasts ... what's that ??
Podcasts ... what's that ??Podcasts ... what's that ??
Podcasts ... what's that ??Martin Tirol
 
Genewize Nutrition from Your DNA
Genewize Nutrition from  Your DNAGenewize Nutrition from  Your DNA
Genewize Nutrition from Your DNAguest58a8fc
 
DNA & Personalized Nutrition
DNA & Personalized NutritionDNA & Personalized Nutrition
DNA & Personalized Nutritionbusinesspower
 

Viewers also liked (6)

sucedio en cuenca
sucedio en cuencasucedio en cuenca
sucedio en cuenca
 
Podcasts ... what's that ??
Podcasts ... what's that ??Podcasts ... what's that ??
Podcasts ... what's that ??
 
Genewize Nutrition from Your DNA
Genewize Nutrition from  Your DNAGenewize Nutrition from  Your DNA
Genewize Nutrition from Your DNA
 
Fena Planifica[1]
Fena Planifica[1]Fena Planifica[1]
Fena Planifica[1]
 
DNA & Personalized Nutrition
DNA & Personalized NutritionDNA & Personalized Nutrition
DNA & Personalized Nutrition
 
DNA of Nutrilite
DNA of NutriliteDNA of Nutrilite
DNA of Nutrilite
 

Similar to Darvocet ordergenerics

Judge Saylor Order in NECP MDL regarding Transfer of PI Cases to Boston
Judge Saylor Order in NECP MDL regarding Transfer of PI Cases to Boston Judge Saylor Order in NECP MDL regarding Transfer of PI Cases to Boston
Judge Saylor Order in NECP MDL regarding Transfer of PI Cases to Boston mzamoralaw
 
Nestlehutt Order Ga Caps
Nestlehutt Order Ga CapsNestlehutt Order Ga Caps
Nestlehutt Order Ga Capsmzamoralaw
 
Oneok v. Learjet- SCOTUS Decision 04-21-15
Oneok v. Learjet- SCOTUS Decision 04-21-15Oneok v. Learjet- SCOTUS Decision 04-21-15
Oneok v. Learjet- SCOTUS Decision 04-21-15Ryan Billings
 
Schedule of action androgel MDL AND TRANSFER ORDER
Schedule of action androgel MDL AND TRANSFER ORDERSchedule of action androgel MDL AND TRANSFER ORDER
Schedule of action androgel MDL AND TRANSFER ORDERmzamoralaw
 
Rivkin radler frivolous lawsuit vs dr shapiro
Rivkin radler frivolous lawsuit vs dr shapiroRivkin radler frivolous lawsuit vs dr shapiro
Rivkin radler frivolous lawsuit vs dr shapirokohen26
 
Press Release from the U.S. Dept. of Justice on Whistleblower Case Settlement...
Press Release from the U.S. Dept. of Justice on Whistleblower Case Settlement...Press Release from the U.S. Dept. of Justice on Whistleblower Case Settlement...
Press Release from the U.S. Dept. of Justice on Whistleblower Case Settlement...Behn Wyetzner, Chartered
 
Libor Lawsuit - In Re _ LIBOR Antitrust Litigation vs. Bank of America, JPMor...
Libor Lawsuit - In Re _ LIBOR Antitrust Litigation vs. Bank of America, JPMor...Libor Lawsuit - In Re _ LIBOR Antitrust Litigation vs. Bank of America, JPMor...
Libor Lawsuit - In Re _ LIBOR Antitrust Litigation vs. Bank of America, JPMor...Umesh Heendeniya
 
Qui Tam Action Legal Papers Brought by Bernard Lisitza Against Pharmacy Compa...
Qui Tam Action Legal Papers Brought by Bernard Lisitza Against Pharmacy Compa...Qui Tam Action Legal Papers Brought by Bernard Lisitza Against Pharmacy Compa...
Qui Tam Action Legal Papers Brought by Bernard Lisitza Against Pharmacy Compa...Behn Wyetzner, Chartered
 
Essay On Health Care And Tort Reform
Essay On Health Care And Tort ReformEssay On Health Care And Tort Reform
Essay On Health Care And Tort ReformAlicia Brooks
 
Studio 417 inc. v. the cincinnati insurance
Studio 417 inc. v. the cincinnati insuranceStudio 417 inc. v. the cincinnati insurance
Studio 417 inc. v. the cincinnati insuranceBolinLawGroup
 
Marine Group MSJ Ruling
Marine Group MSJ RulingMarine Group MSJ Ruling
Marine Group MSJ RulingSeth Row
 
Conte Presentation
Conte PresentationConte Presentation
Conte PresentationKelly Savage
 
National union v. redbox order on msj august 7 2014 wd wa
National union v. redbox order on msj august 7 2014 wd waNational union v. redbox order on msj august 7 2014 wd wa
National union v. redbox order on msj august 7 2014 wd waSeth Row
 

Similar to Darvocet ordergenerics (20)

Judge Saylor Order in NECP MDL regarding Transfer of PI Cases to Boston
Judge Saylor Order in NECP MDL regarding Transfer of PI Cases to Boston Judge Saylor Order in NECP MDL regarding Transfer of PI Cases to Boston
Judge Saylor Order in NECP MDL regarding Transfer of PI Cases to Boston
 
Nestlehutt Order Ga Caps
Nestlehutt Order Ga CapsNestlehutt Order Ga Caps
Nestlehutt Order Ga Caps
 
Oneok v. Learjet- SCOTUS Decision 04-21-15
Oneok v. Learjet- SCOTUS Decision 04-21-15Oneok v. Learjet- SCOTUS Decision 04-21-15
Oneok v. Learjet- SCOTUS Decision 04-21-15
 
10000000050
1000000005010000000050
10000000050
 
Schedule of action androgel MDL AND TRANSFER ORDER
Schedule of action androgel MDL AND TRANSFER ORDERSchedule of action androgel MDL AND TRANSFER ORDER
Schedule of action androgel MDL AND TRANSFER ORDER
 
Rivkin radler frivolous lawsuit vs dr shapiro
Rivkin radler frivolous lawsuit vs dr shapiroRivkin radler frivolous lawsuit vs dr shapiro
Rivkin radler frivolous lawsuit vs dr shapiro
 
Press Release from the U.S. Dept. of Justice on Whistleblower Case Settlement...
Press Release from the U.S. Dept. of Justice on Whistleblower Case Settlement...Press Release from the U.S. Dept. of Justice on Whistleblower Case Settlement...
Press Release from the U.S. Dept. of Justice on Whistleblower Case Settlement...
 
Libor Lawsuit - In Re _ LIBOR Antitrust Litigation vs. Bank of America, JPMor...
Libor Lawsuit - In Re _ LIBOR Antitrust Litigation vs. Bank of America, JPMor...Libor Lawsuit - In Re _ LIBOR Antitrust Litigation vs. Bank of America, JPMor...
Libor Lawsuit - In Re _ LIBOR Antitrust Litigation vs. Bank of America, JPMor...
 
October Newsletter
October NewsletterOctober Newsletter
October Newsletter
 
Westlaw Journal
Westlaw JournalWestlaw Journal
Westlaw Journal
 
Anda Preemption
Anda PreemptionAnda Preemption
Anda Preemption
 
Qui Tam Action Legal Papers Brought by Bernard Lisitza Against Pharmacy Compa...
Qui Tam Action Legal Papers Brought by Bernard Lisitza Against Pharmacy Compa...Qui Tam Action Legal Papers Brought by Bernard Lisitza Against Pharmacy Compa...
Qui Tam Action Legal Papers Brought by Bernard Lisitza Against Pharmacy Compa...
 
Juicio vantage-usa
Juicio vantage-usaJuicio vantage-usa
Juicio vantage-usa
 
Essay On Health Care And Tort Reform
Essay On Health Care And Tort ReformEssay On Health Care And Tort Reform
Essay On Health Care And Tort Reform
 
Studio 417 inc. v. the cincinnati insurance
Studio 417 inc. v. the cincinnati insuranceStudio 417 inc. v. the cincinnati insurance
Studio 417 inc. v. the cincinnati insurance
 
Marine Group MSJ Ruling
Marine Group MSJ RulingMarine Group MSJ Ruling
Marine Group MSJ Ruling
 
Necc removal
Necc removalNecc removal
Necc removal
 
Conte Presentation
Conte PresentationConte Presentation
Conte Presentation
 
National union v. redbox order on msj august 7 2014 wd wa
National union v. redbox order on msj august 7 2014 wd waNational union v. redbox order on msj august 7 2014 wd wa
National union v. redbox order on msj august 7 2014 wd wa
 
3a fig3.1
3a fig3.13a fig3.1
3a fig3.1
 

More from mzamoralaw

Wright v marshaw
Wright v marshawWright v marshaw
Wright v marshawmzamoralaw
 
Worley v. YMCA
Worley v. YMCAWorley v. YMCA
Worley v. YMCAmzamoralaw
 
Mdl 2767-initial transfer-03-17 (1)
Mdl 2767-initial transfer-03-17 (1)Mdl 2767-initial transfer-03-17 (1)
Mdl 2767-initial transfer-03-17 (1)mzamoralaw
 
Opinion grossman FL preemptory challenges
Opinion grossman FL preemptory challengesOpinion grossman FL preemptory challenges
Opinion grossman FL preemptory challengesmzamoralaw
 
Judge's ruling on seeling bills to 3rd party
Judge's ruling on seeling bills to 3rd partyJudge's ruling on seeling bills to 3rd party
Judge's ruling on seeling bills to 3rd partymzamoralaw
 
VW Clean Diesel PSC appointments
VW Clean Diesel PSC appointmentsVW Clean Diesel PSC appointments
VW Clean Diesel PSC appointmentsmzamoralaw
 
Lumber Liquidators MDL goes to Alexandria Virginia
Lumber Liquidators MDL goes to Alexandria VirginiaLumber Liquidators MDL goes to Alexandria Virginia
Lumber Liquidators MDL goes to Alexandria Virginiamzamoralaw
 
NEBRASKA TRIAL LAWYERS
NEBRASKA TRIAL LAWYERS NEBRASKA TRIAL LAWYERS
NEBRASKA TRIAL LAWYERS mzamoralaw
 
NEW YORK ATTORNEY GENERAL CEASE AND DESIST LETTER HERBAL PRODUCTS
NEW YORK ATTORNEY GENERAL CEASE AND DESIST LETTER HERBAL PRODUCTSNEW YORK ATTORNEY GENERAL CEASE AND DESIST LETTER HERBAL PRODUCTS
NEW YORK ATTORNEY GENERAL CEASE AND DESIST LETTER HERBAL PRODUCTSmzamoralaw
 
Nucci Target Social Media Discovery
Nucci Target Social Media DiscoveryNucci Target Social Media Discovery
Nucci Target Social Media Discoverymzamoralaw
 
Trail v. Lesko
Trail v. LeskoTrail v. Lesko
Trail v. Leskomzamoralaw
 
Trail v. lesko (social media discovery)
Trail v. lesko (social media discovery)Trail v. lesko (social media discovery)
Trail v. lesko (social media discovery)mzamoralaw
 
NCAA CONCUSSION MDL, ORDER AND PLAINTIFFS EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
NCAA CONCUSSION MDL, ORDER AND PLAINTIFFS EXECUTIVE COMMITTEENCAA CONCUSSION MDL, ORDER AND PLAINTIFFS EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
NCAA CONCUSSION MDL, ORDER AND PLAINTIFFS EXECUTIVE COMMITTEEmzamoralaw
 
Morcellator Lawyer Georgia
Morcellator Lawyer GeorgiaMorcellator Lawyer Georgia
Morcellator Lawyer Georgiamzamoralaw
 
First LowT Complaint filed in Georgia Punitive Damages
First LowT Complaint filed in Georgia Punitive DamagesFirst LowT Complaint filed in Georgia Punitive Damages
First LowT Complaint filed in Georgia Punitive Damagesmzamoralaw
 

More from mzamoralaw (20)

Ladue
LadueLadue
Ladue
 
MGM Complaint
MGM ComplaintMGM Complaint
MGM Complaint
 
Wright v marshaw
Wright v marshawWright v marshaw
Wright v marshaw
 
Worley v. YMCA
Worley v. YMCAWorley v. YMCA
Worley v. YMCA
 
Mdl 2767-initial transfer-03-17 (1)
Mdl 2767-initial transfer-03-17 (1)Mdl 2767-initial transfer-03-17 (1)
Mdl 2767-initial transfer-03-17 (1)
 
Opinion grossman FL preemptory challenges
Opinion grossman FL preemptory challengesOpinion grossman FL preemptory challenges
Opinion grossman FL preemptory challenges
 
Judge's ruling on seeling bills to 3rd party
Judge's ruling on seeling bills to 3rd partyJudge's ruling on seeling bills to 3rd party
Judge's ruling on seeling bills to 3rd party
 
VW Clean Diesel PSC appointments
VW Clean Diesel PSC appointmentsVW Clean Diesel PSC appointments
VW Clean Diesel PSC appointments
 
Lumber Liquidators MDL goes to Alexandria Virginia
Lumber Liquidators MDL goes to Alexandria VirginiaLumber Liquidators MDL goes to Alexandria Virginia
Lumber Liquidators MDL goes to Alexandria Virginia
 
NEBRASKA TRIAL LAWYERS
NEBRASKA TRIAL LAWYERS NEBRASKA TRIAL LAWYERS
NEBRASKA TRIAL LAWYERS
 
NEW YORK ATTORNEY GENERAL CEASE AND DESIST LETTER HERBAL PRODUCTS
NEW YORK ATTORNEY GENERAL CEASE AND DESIST LETTER HERBAL PRODUCTSNEW YORK ATTORNEY GENERAL CEASE AND DESIST LETTER HERBAL PRODUCTS
NEW YORK ATTORNEY GENERAL CEASE AND DESIST LETTER HERBAL PRODUCTS
 
Nucci Target Social Media Discovery
Nucci Target Social Media DiscoveryNucci Target Social Media Discovery
Nucci Target Social Media Discovery
 
Trail v. Lesko
Trail v. LeskoTrail v. Lesko
Trail v. Lesko
 
Aps
ApsAps
Aps
 
Trail v. lesko (social media discovery)
Trail v. lesko (social media discovery)Trail v. lesko (social media discovery)
Trail v. lesko (social media discovery)
 
NCAA CONCUSSION MDL, ORDER AND PLAINTIFFS EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
NCAA CONCUSSION MDL, ORDER AND PLAINTIFFS EXECUTIVE COMMITTEENCAA CONCUSSION MDL, ORDER AND PLAINTIFFS EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
NCAA CONCUSSION MDL, ORDER AND PLAINTIFFS EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
 
USA v.Mira
USA v.Mira USA v.Mira
USA v.Mira
 
Ftc national
Ftc nationalFtc national
Ftc national
 
Morcellator Lawyer Georgia
Morcellator Lawyer GeorgiaMorcellator Lawyer Georgia
Morcellator Lawyer Georgia
 
First LowT Complaint filed in Georgia Punitive Damages
First LowT Complaint filed in Georgia Punitive DamagesFirst LowT Complaint filed in Georgia Punitive Damages
First LowT Complaint filed in Georgia Punitive Damages
 

Recently uploaded

Introduction to The overview of GAAP LO 1-5.pptx
Introduction to The overview of GAAP LO 1-5.pptxIntroduction to The overview of GAAP LO 1-5.pptx
Introduction to The overview of GAAP LO 1-5.pptxJemalSeid25
 
Borderless Access - Global Panel book-unlock 2024
Borderless Access - Global Panel book-unlock 2024Borderless Access - Global Panel book-unlock 2024
Borderless Access - Global Panel book-unlock 2024Borderless Access
 
Mihir Menda - Member of Supervisory Board at RMZ
Mihir Menda - Member of Supervisory Board at RMZMihir Menda - Member of Supervisory Board at RMZ
Mihir Menda - Member of Supervisory Board at RMZKanakChauhan5
 
Plano de marketing- inglês em formato ppt
Plano de marketing- inglês  em formato pptPlano de marketing- inglês  em formato ppt
Plano de marketing- inglês em formato pptElizangelaSoaresdaCo
 
Building Your Personal Brand on LinkedIn - Expert Planet- 2024
 Building Your Personal Brand on LinkedIn - Expert Planet-  2024 Building Your Personal Brand on LinkedIn - Expert Planet-  2024
Building Your Personal Brand on LinkedIn - Expert Planet- 2024Stephan Koning
 
Talent Management research intelligence_13 paradigm shifts_20 March 2024.pdf
Talent Management research intelligence_13 paradigm shifts_20 March 2024.pdfTalent Management research intelligence_13 paradigm shifts_20 March 2024.pdf
Talent Management research intelligence_13 paradigm shifts_20 March 2024.pdfCharles Cotter, PhD
 
Michael Vidyakin: Introduction to PMO (UA)
Michael Vidyakin: Introduction to PMO (UA)Michael Vidyakin: Introduction to PMO (UA)
Michael Vidyakin: Introduction to PMO (UA)Lviv Startup Club
 
Harvard Business Review.pptx | Navigating Labor Unrest (March-April 2024)
Harvard Business Review.pptx | Navigating Labor Unrest (March-April 2024)Harvard Business Review.pptx | Navigating Labor Unrest (March-April 2024)
Harvard Business Review.pptx | Navigating Labor Unrest (March-April 2024)tazeenaila12
 
Upgrade Your Banking Experience with Advanced Core Banking Applications
Upgrade Your Banking Experience with Advanced Core Banking ApplicationsUpgrade Your Banking Experience with Advanced Core Banking Applications
Upgrade Your Banking Experience with Advanced Core Banking ApplicationsIntellect Design Arena Ltd
 
Chicago Medical Malpractice Lawyer Chicago Medical Malpractice Lawyer.pdf
Chicago Medical Malpractice Lawyer Chicago Medical Malpractice Lawyer.pdfChicago Medical Malpractice Lawyer Chicago Medical Malpractice Lawyer.pdf
Chicago Medical Malpractice Lawyer Chicago Medical Malpractice Lawyer.pdfSourav Sikder
 
Tata Kelola Bisnis perushaan yang bergerak
Tata Kelola Bisnis perushaan yang bergerakTata Kelola Bisnis perushaan yang bergerak
Tata Kelola Bisnis perushaan yang bergerakEditores1
 
Fabric RFID Wristbands in Ireland for Events and Festivals
Fabric RFID Wristbands in Ireland for Events and FestivalsFabric RFID Wristbands in Ireland for Events and Festivals
Fabric RFID Wristbands in Ireland for Events and FestivalsWristbands Ireland
 
Graham and Doddsville - Issue 1 - Winter 2006 (1).pdf
Graham and Doddsville - Issue 1 - Winter 2006 (1).pdfGraham and Doddsville - Issue 1 - Winter 2006 (1).pdf
Graham and Doddsville - Issue 1 - Winter 2006 (1).pdfAnhNguyen97152
 
Boat Trailers Market PPT: Growth, Outlook, Demand, Keyplayer Analysis and Opp...
Boat Trailers Market PPT: Growth, Outlook, Demand, Keyplayer Analysis and Opp...Boat Trailers Market PPT: Growth, Outlook, Demand, Keyplayer Analysis and Opp...
Boat Trailers Market PPT: Growth, Outlook, Demand, Keyplayer Analysis and Opp...IMARC Group
 
HELENE HECKROTTE'S PROFESSIONAL PORTFOLIO.pptx
HELENE HECKROTTE'S PROFESSIONAL PORTFOLIO.pptxHELENE HECKROTTE'S PROFESSIONAL PORTFOLIO.pptx
HELENE HECKROTTE'S PROFESSIONAL PORTFOLIO.pptxHelene Heckrotte
 
To Create Your Own Wig Online To Create Your Own Wig Online
To Create Your Own Wig Online  To Create Your Own Wig OnlineTo Create Your Own Wig Online  To Create Your Own Wig Online
To Create Your Own Wig Online To Create Your Own Wig Onlinelng ths
 
IIBA® Melbourne - Navigating Business Analysis - Excellence for Career Growth...
IIBA® Melbourne - Navigating Business Analysis - Excellence for Career Growth...IIBA® Melbourne - Navigating Business Analysis - Excellence for Career Growth...
IIBA® Melbourne - Navigating Business Analysis - Excellence for Career Growth...AustraliaChapterIIBA
 
Lecture_6.pptx English speaking easyb to
Lecture_6.pptx English speaking easyb toLecture_6.pptx English speaking easyb to
Lecture_6.pptx English speaking easyb toumarfarooquejamali32
 
Q2 2024 APCO Geopolitical Radar - The Global Operating Environment for Business
Q2 2024 APCO Geopolitical Radar - The Global Operating Environment for BusinessQ2 2024 APCO Geopolitical Radar - The Global Operating Environment for Business
Q2 2024 APCO Geopolitical Radar - The Global Operating Environment for BusinessAPCO
 
A flour, rice and Suji company in Jhang.
A flour, rice and Suji company in Jhang.A flour, rice and Suji company in Jhang.
A flour, rice and Suji company in Jhang.mcshagufta46
 

Recently uploaded (20)

Introduction to The overview of GAAP LO 1-5.pptx
Introduction to The overview of GAAP LO 1-5.pptxIntroduction to The overview of GAAP LO 1-5.pptx
Introduction to The overview of GAAP LO 1-5.pptx
 
Borderless Access - Global Panel book-unlock 2024
Borderless Access - Global Panel book-unlock 2024Borderless Access - Global Panel book-unlock 2024
Borderless Access - Global Panel book-unlock 2024
 
Mihir Menda - Member of Supervisory Board at RMZ
Mihir Menda - Member of Supervisory Board at RMZMihir Menda - Member of Supervisory Board at RMZ
Mihir Menda - Member of Supervisory Board at RMZ
 
Plano de marketing- inglês em formato ppt
Plano de marketing- inglês  em formato pptPlano de marketing- inglês  em formato ppt
Plano de marketing- inglês em formato ppt
 
Building Your Personal Brand on LinkedIn - Expert Planet- 2024
 Building Your Personal Brand on LinkedIn - Expert Planet-  2024 Building Your Personal Brand on LinkedIn - Expert Planet-  2024
Building Your Personal Brand on LinkedIn - Expert Planet- 2024
 
Talent Management research intelligence_13 paradigm shifts_20 March 2024.pdf
Talent Management research intelligence_13 paradigm shifts_20 March 2024.pdfTalent Management research intelligence_13 paradigm shifts_20 March 2024.pdf
Talent Management research intelligence_13 paradigm shifts_20 March 2024.pdf
 
Michael Vidyakin: Introduction to PMO (UA)
Michael Vidyakin: Introduction to PMO (UA)Michael Vidyakin: Introduction to PMO (UA)
Michael Vidyakin: Introduction to PMO (UA)
 
Harvard Business Review.pptx | Navigating Labor Unrest (March-April 2024)
Harvard Business Review.pptx | Navigating Labor Unrest (March-April 2024)Harvard Business Review.pptx | Navigating Labor Unrest (March-April 2024)
Harvard Business Review.pptx | Navigating Labor Unrest (March-April 2024)
 
Upgrade Your Banking Experience with Advanced Core Banking Applications
Upgrade Your Banking Experience with Advanced Core Banking ApplicationsUpgrade Your Banking Experience with Advanced Core Banking Applications
Upgrade Your Banking Experience with Advanced Core Banking Applications
 
Chicago Medical Malpractice Lawyer Chicago Medical Malpractice Lawyer.pdf
Chicago Medical Malpractice Lawyer Chicago Medical Malpractice Lawyer.pdfChicago Medical Malpractice Lawyer Chicago Medical Malpractice Lawyer.pdf
Chicago Medical Malpractice Lawyer Chicago Medical Malpractice Lawyer.pdf
 
Tata Kelola Bisnis perushaan yang bergerak
Tata Kelola Bisnis perushaan yang bergerakTata Kelola Bisnis perushaan yang bergerak
Tata Kelola Bisnis perushaan yang bergerak
 
Fabric RFID Wristbands in Ireland for Events and Festivals
Fabric RFID Wristbands in Ireland for Events and FestivalsFabric RFID Wristbands in Ireland for Events and Festivals
Fabric RFID Wristbands in Ireland for Events and Festivals
 
Graham and Doddsville - Issue 1 - Winter 2006 (1).pdf
Graham and Doddsville - Issue 1 - Winter 2006 (1).pdfGraham and Doddsville - Issue 1 - Winter 2006 (1).pdf
Graham and Doddsville - Issue 1 - Winter 2006 (1).pdf
 
Boat Trailers Market PPT: Growth, Outlook, Demand, Keyplayer Analysis and Opp...
Boat Trailers Market PPT: Growth, Outlook, Demand, Keyplayer Analysis and Opp...Boat Trailers Market PPT: Growth, Outlook, Demand, Keyplayer Analysis and Opp...
Boat Trailers Market PPT: Growth, Outlook, Demand, Keyplayer Analysis and Opp...
 
HELENE HECKROTTE'S PROFESSIONAL PORTFOLIO.pptx
HELENE HECKROTTE'S PROFESSIONAL PORTFOLIO.pptxHELENE HECKROTTE'S PROFESSIONAL PORTFOLIO.pptx
HELENE HECKROTTE'S PROFESSIONAL PORTFOLIO.pptx
 
To Create Your Own Wig Online To Create Your Own Wig Online
To Create Your Own Wig Online  To Create Your Own Wig OnlineTo Create Your Own Wig Online  To Create Your Own Wig Online
To Create Your Own Wig Online To Create Your Own Wig Online
 
IIBA® Melbourne - Navigating Business Analysis - Excellence for Career Growth...
IIBA® Melbourne - Navigating Business Analysis - Excellence for Career Growth...IIBA® Melbourne - Navigating Business Analysis - Excellence for Career Growth...
IIBA® Melbourne - Navigating Business Analysis - Excellence for Career Growth...
 
Lecture_6.pptx English speaking easyb to
Lecture_6.pptx English speaking easyb toLecture_6.pptx English speaking easyb to
Lecture_6.pptx English speaking easyb to
 
Q2 2024 APCO Geopolitical Radar - The Global Operating Environment for Business
Q2 2024 APCO Geopolitical Radar - The Global Operating Environment for BusinessQ2 2024 APCO Geopolitical Radar - The Global Operating Environment for Business
Q2 2024 APCO Geopolitical Radar - The Global Operating Environment for Business
 
A flour, rice and Suji company in Jhang.
A flour, rice and Suji company in Jhang.A flour, rice and Suji company in Jhang.
A flour, rice and Suji company in Jhang.
 

Darvocet ordergenerics

  • 1. Case: 2:11-md-02226-DCR Doc #: 1305 Filed: 03/05/12 Page: 1 of 22 - Page ID#: 40066 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY NORTHERN DIVISION (at Covington) ) IN RE: DARVOCET, DARVON AND ) PROPOXYPHENE PRODUCTS ) LIABILITY LITIGATION ) Master File No. 2: 11-md-2226-DCR ) MDL Docket No. 2226 ) ) Esposito v. Xanodyne Pharm., Inc., et al., ) Civil Action No. 2:11-175-DCR Corso v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., et al., ) Civil Action No. 2:11-179-DCR Alix v. Eli Lilly and Company, et al., ) Civil Action No. 2:11-182-DCR Smith v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., ) Civil Action No. 2:11-183-DCR Gilbert v. Eli Lilly and Company, et al., ) Civil Action No. 2:11-184-DCR Hunsucker v. Xanodyne Pharm., Inc., et al., ) Civil Action No. 2:11-185-DCR West v. Qualitest Pharm., Inc., et al., ) Civil Action No. 2:11-186-DCR Trimboli v. Xanodyne Pharm., Inc., et al., ) Civil Action No. 2:11-189-DCR Eldredge v. Xanodyne Pharm., Inc., et al., ) Civil Action No. 2:11-190-DCR Kellehar v. Xanodyne Pharm., Inc., et al., ) Civil Action No. 2:11-191-DCR Hallaway v. Eli Lilly and Company, et al., ) Civil Action No. 2:11-195-DCR Lowe v. Xanodyne Pharm., Inc., et al., ) Civil Action No. 2:11-196-DCR Coney v. Xanodyne Pharm., Inc., et al., ) Civil Action No. 2:11-197-DCR Kinter v. MI Holdings, Inc., et al., ) Civil Action No. 2:11-199-DCR Rogers v. Xanodyne Pharm., Inc., et al., ) Civil Action No. 2:11-200-DCR R. Knight v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., et al., ) Civil Action No. 2:11-201-DCR Oniate v. Eli Lilly and Company, et al., ) Civil Action No. 2:11-206-DCR Germain v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., et al., ) Civil Action No. 2:11-209-DCR Simpson v. Qualitest Pharm., Inc., et al., ) Civil Action No. 2:11-210-DCR Cook v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., et al., ) Civil Action No. 2:11-212-DCR Lynch v. Xanodyne Pharm., Inc., et al., ) Civil Action No. 2:11-213-DCR Turner v. Watson Pharm. (NJ), Inc., et al., ) Civil Action No. 2:11-221-DCR Dickerson v. Eli Lilly and Company, et al., ) Civil Action No. 2:11-295-DCR Labit v. Xanodyne Pharm., Inc., et al., ) Civil Action No. 2:11-296-DCR Balben v. Xanodyne Pharm., Inc., et al., ) Civil Action No. 2:11-297-DCR Forrest v. Xanodyne Pharm., Inc., et al., ) Civil Action No. 2:11-298-DCR Noel v. Xanodyne Pharm., Inc., et al., ) Civil Action No. 2:11-299-DCR Green v. Xanodyne Pharm., Inc., et al., ) Civil Action No. 2:11-300-DCR Wheeler v. Xanodyne Pharm., Inc., et al., ) Civil Action No. 2:11-301-DCR P. Knight v. Xanodyne Pharm., Inc., et al., ) Civil Action No. 2:11-307-DCR Del Favero v. Xanodyne Pharm., Inc., et al., ) Civil Action No. 2:11-311-DCR -1-
  • 2. Case: 2:11-md-02226-DCR Doc #: 1305 Filed: 03/05/12 Page: 2 of 22 - Page ID#: 40067 Blackwell v. Xanodyne Pharm., Inc., et al., ) Civil Action No. 2:11-312-DCR Sandel v. Eli Lilly and Company, et al., ) Civil Action No. 2:11-325-DCR Miller v. Eli Lilly and Company, et al., ) Civil Action No. 2: 11-352-DCR *** *** *** *** MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING GENERIC DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS *** *** *** *** This matter is pending for consideration of the joint Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants Brenn Distribution, Inc.; Brenn Manufacturing, Inc.; Covidien, Inc.; Generics Bidco I, LLC; Generics Bidco II, LLC; Generics International (US Parent), Inc.; Generics International (US), Inc.; Mallinckrodt Holdings, LLC; Mallinckrodt, Inc.; Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Mylan, Inc.; Propst Distribution, Inc.; Qualitest Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Teva Biopharmaceuticals USA, Inc.; Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.; Vintage Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Vintage Pharmaceuticals, LLC; Watson Pharmaceuticals (New Jersey), Inc.; and Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (collectively, “the Generic Defendants”).1 [Record No. 383] Also pending is the Generic Defendants’ First Supplemental Motion to Dismiss. [Record No. 458] The Generic Defendants argue that the claims asserted against them are preempted by federal law pursuant to the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Pliva v. Mensing, 131 S. Ct. 2567 (2011). For the reasons explained below, their motions to dismiss will be granted. 1 Not all of the Generic Defendants have moved for dismissal in all cases covered by the current motions. Instead, the motions — and, therefore, this Memorandum Opinion and Order — relate to those cases and defendants identified in Appendix A [Record No. 383-1] and First Supplemental Appendix A [458-1] to the motions. [See Record No. 383, p. 2 n.1; Record No. 458, p. 1 n.1; see also Record No. 1038, p. 15 (seeking dismissal as set forth in Appendix A and First Supplemental Appendix A).] -2-
  • 3. Case: 2:11-md-02226-DCR Doc #: 1305 Filed: 03/05/12 Page: 3 of 22 - Page ID#: 40068 I. BACKGROUND2 This multidistrict litigation (“MDL”) arises from injuries the plaintiffs or their decedents allegedly suffered as a result of ingesting propoxyphene, a prescription pain medication sold under the brand names Darvon and Darvocet as well as in generic form. Shortly before the MDL proceedings were transferred to this Court, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Mensing, holding that federal law, which requires warning labels on generic drugs to match those of the corresponding brand-name drugs, preempted the plaintiffs’ state-law failure-to-warn claims against generic drug manufacturers. See 131 S Ct. at 2572. Because state law placed a duty “on all drug manufacturers to adequately and safely label their products,” while federal law “prevented [generic] [m]anufacturers from independently changing their drugs’ safety labels,” id. at 2577, it was impossible for generic manufacturers to comply with both state and federal law. Id. at 2578. In other words, generic manufacturers’ state-law duty to strengthen the drug labels directly conflicted with their “ongoing federal duty of sameness.” Id. at 2575; see id. at 2578. Thus, under the doctrine of impossibility preemption, the Supremacy Clause mandated that state law must “give way.” Id. at 2577. The plaintiffs in this MDL were permitted to amend their complaints following publication of the Mensing decision. [See Record No. 198] In their amended complaints, the plaintiffs generally allege the following claims against the Generic Defendants: design defect (strict liability), defect due to inadequate warning (strict liability), negligent design, negligence, 2 A more complete discussion of the facts underlying this action is contained in the Court’s Memorandum Opinion and Order, also entered this date, addressing Defendant Xanodyne Pharmaceuticals, Inc.’s consolidated motions to dismiss. -3-
  • 4. Case: 2:11-md-02226-DCR Doc #: 1305 Filed: 03/05/12 Page: 4 of 22 - Page ID#: 40069 negligent failure to warn, fraudulent nondisclosure, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent misrepresentation, statutory negligence, breach of express warranty, and breach of implied warranty.3 II. ANALYSIS The plaintiffs maintain that Mensing is inapplicable to their amended claims, primarily because they “are not contending that the Generic Defendants should have added new, unapproved warnings about propoxyphene’s risks,” but rather “that the Generic Defendants knew their product was unreasonably dangerous and should have voluntarily withdrawn it from the market.”4 [Record No. 568, p. 13] Thus, the “central claim,” according to the plaintiffs, “is that Defendants wrongfully marketed an unreasonably dangerous product.” [Id.] But no matter how they frame their allegations, the plaintiffs cannot avoid Mensing’s effect. A. Wrongful Marketing According to the plaintiffs, their “wrongful marketing” claims include design defect, negligent design, negligence, and breach of implied warranty. [Id. at 15] They point to two Sixth Circuit decisions, Wimbush v. Wyeth, 619 F.3d 632 (6th Cir. 2010), and Tobin v. Astra 3 The parties cite the Amended Complaint filed in Alix v. Eli Lilly and Company, Civil Action No. 2:11-182 [Record No. 287], as representative of the plaintiffs’ amended complaints. [See Record No. 383-2, p. 21 n.11; Record No. 568, p. 9 n.1.] Accordingly, in this opinion, references to the plaintiffs’ claims are based on the Alix Amended Complaint. 4 Plaintiffs Yanise and Jackson Germain individually oppose the Generic Defendants’ motion to dismiss on the ground that it is not timely. [See Record No. 571.] Specifically, they argue that Defendant Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. may not properly move to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) because it has already filed an answer. [Id., p. 4] They acknowledge, however, that the Court may construe the motion as one for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c). [Id.] The Court finds that to be the appropriate course. -4-
  • 5. Case: 2:11-md-02226-DCR Doc #: 1305 Filed: 03/05/12 Page: 5 of 22 - Page ID#: 40070 Pharmaceutical Products, Inc., 993 F.2d 528 (6th Cir. 1993), that supposedly constitute “controlling precedent” requiring the Court to find against preemption. [Record No. 568, p. 16] In Wimbush and Tobin, the Sixth Circuit concluded that state-law tort claims were not preempted by the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”). See 619 F.3d at 646; 993 F.2d at 537. Both cases were decided prior to Mensing, however. More importantly, neither involved a generic manufacturer.5 The question in Wimbush and Tobin was whether initial approval of a drug by the federal Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) resulted in preemption of state-law tort claims based on the brand-name manufacturer’s alleged wrongdoing “in the process leading up to . . . approval.” Wimbush, 619 F.3d at 643; see id. at 642 (“As the district court framed it, the issue is whether a state-court finding that a manufacturer was negligent in bringing the drug to market conflicts or is inconsistent with the FDA’s subsequent approval of that drug for the market.”); Tobin, 993 F.2d at 537 (rejecting defendants’ contention that allowing state products liability claims amounted to “a mockery of the scientific analysis employed by the FDA and the Advisory Committee which conclusively found that [the drug] was efficacious” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Here, by contrast, the conflict between state and federal law arises out of the sameness requirement imposed on generic manufacturers by the FDCA after the drug is approved. As the Mensing Court recognized, this distinction is significant. 5 Likewise, all but one of the other cases cited by the plaintiffs on this point involved brand- name manufacturers, and all were decided before Mensing. [See Record No. 568, p. 19 (citing cases from the Second, Fourth, Fifth, and Tenth Circuits, as well as the Southern District of Indiana, District of New Hampshire, and Eastern District of Virginia).] -5-
  • 6. Case: 2:11-md-02226-DCR Doc #: 1305 Filed: 03/05/12 Page: 6 of 22 - Page ID#: 40071 It is beyond dispute that the federal statutes and regulations that apply to brand- name drug manufacturers are meaningfully different than those that apply to generic drug manufacturers. Indeed, it is the special, and different, regulation of generic drugs that allowed the generic drug market to expand, bringing more drugs more quickly and cheaply to the public. But different federal statutes and regulations may, as here, lead to different pre-emption results.6 131 S. Ct. at 2582; see id. at 2581 & n.8 (distinguishing Wyeth, 555 U.S. 555). In short, the Court agrees with the Generic Defendants that Wimbush and Tobin, “which involve different legal theories, implicate a different regulatory scheme, and were decided prior to Mensing, are inapposite.” [Record No. 1038, p. 10] This leaves the plaintiffs’ contention that there is no conflict between state and federal law (and thus, no preemption) because the Generic Defendants were always free to simply remove propoxyphene products from the market. [See Record No. 568, pp. 15-24.] The Mensing plaintiffs made the same argument, without success, in their petition for rehearing. See Respondents’ Petition for Rehearing, Pliva, Inc. v. Mensing, 131 S. Ct. 2567 (July 18, 2011) (No. 09-993), 2011 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 878, at *3-6. And on remand, the Eighth Circuit interpreted Mensing to encompass such claims, vacating the portion of its earlier opinion that embraced the failure-to-withdraw theory and denying the plaintiff’s motion to file a supplemental brief on that issue, among others. See Mensing v. Wyeth, Inc., 658 F.3d 867 (8th Cir. 2011), and 588 F.3d 603, 611 (8th Cir. 2009) (“The generic defendants were not compelled to market metoclopramide. If they realized their label was insufficient but did not believe they could even propose a label change, they could have simply stopped selling the product.”); 6 For this reason, Plaintiff Cook’s contention that the Court should follow Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U.S. 555 (2009), which held that failure-to-warn claims against a brand-name drug manufacturer were not preempted, is without merit. [See Record No. 577.] -6-
  • 7. Case: 2:11-md-02226-DCR Doc #: 1305 Filed: 03/05/12 Page: 7 of 22 - Page ID#: 40072 Appellant Gladys Mensing’s Motion for Leave to File a Supplemental Brief at 4-5, Mensing, 658 F.3d 867 (Sept. 8, 2011) (No. 08-3850). The Sixth Circuit was likewise unpersuaded by the post-Mensing failure-to-withdraw argument. See Smith v. Wyeth, Inc., 657 F.3d 420, 423 (6th Cir. 2011); Appellants’ Supplemental Letter Brief Regarding Pliva, Inc. v. Mensing at 5-6, Smith, 657 F.3d 420 (Aug. 15, 2011) (Nos. 09-5460, 09-5466, 09-5509); see also Gross v. Pfizer, Inc., No. 10-cv-00110-AW, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134895, at *8-9 (D. Md. Nov. 22, 2011) (noting rejection of failure-to-withdraw argument in Mensing and Smith). While the plaintiffs attempt to get around Mensing by asserting “failure to withdraw” rather than failure to warn, they have not demonstrated that their so-called wrongful marketing claims escape preemption.7 The claims — strict liability design defect, negligent design, negligent marketing, and breach of implied warranty — are all based on the allegedly defective design of the drug, which the Generic Defendants, bound by their “ongoing federal duty of sameness,” were powerless to change. Mensing, 131 S. Ct. at 2575. And as the Generic Defendants observe, the idea that they should have simply stopped selling propoxyphene is an oversimplified solution that could apply anytime the issue of impossibility preemption arises: avoid a conflict between state and federal law by withdrawing from the regulated conduct altogether. Cf. id. at 2579 (“Accepting [the plaintiffs’] argument would render conflict pre- emption largely meaningless because it would make most conflicts between state and federal law 7 That the plaintiffs have merely repackaged their failure-to-warn claims is evident from the second paragraph of the Alix Amended Complaint, which summarizes the new allegations as follows: “Plaintiff alleges that Defendants knowingly or negligently marketed and sold defectively designed Propoxyphene Products without adequate warnings.” [Record No. 287, p. 2 ¶ 2 (emphasis added)] -7-
  • 8. Case: 2:11-md-02226-DCR Doc #: 1305 Filed: 03/05/12 Page: 8 of 22 - Page ID#: 40073 illusory.”). [See Record No. 383-2, p. 32; Record No. 1038, p. 9.] Moreover, as noted previously, the failure-to-withdraw argument was rejected by the Mensing Court, the Eighth Circuit following Mensing’s remand, and the Sixth Circuit in Smith. This Court likewise rejects the plaintiffs’ arguments. Accordingly, these claims will be dismissed. B. Failure to Warn The plaintiffs assert that Mensing does not preclude warning claims premised on the Generic Defendants’ alleged failure to timely change the labeling on their propoxyphene products after July 2009, when the FDA ordered Xanodyne to strengthen the label. [See Record No. 568, pp. 31-33.] At least two courts have found, since Mensing, that generic manufacturers may be liable for failure to warn if the FDA had already approved a label change — i.e., if it would not have been impossible for the generic manufacturer to comply with both state and federal law. See Lyman v. Pfizer, Inc., No. 2:09-cv-262, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13185, at *16- 19 (D. Vt. Feb. 3, 2012); Fisher v. Pelstring, No. 4:09-cv-00252-TLW, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116162, at *12 (D.S.C. Sept. 30, 2011). Both cases, however, involved metoclopramide (the drug at issue in Mensing), which the generic manufacturer acknowledged did not bear a strengthened warning approved by the FDA in 2004. See Fisher, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116162, at *12 (“[The] possible deviation in PLIVA’s label for generic metoclopramide, which both parties indicate exists, is sufficient to conclude the plaintiffs’ claims are not entirely preempted.” (emphasis added)). There is no such consensus in this case. Instead, the sole indication that a failure to update occurred is the following vague allegation: -8-
  • 9. Case: 2:11-md-02226-DCR Doc #: 1305 Filed: 03/05/12 Page: 9 of 22 - Page ID#: 40074 The FDA mandate [to Xanodyne] likewise effectively required the Generic Defendants to issue the Black Box warning and label changes, but upon information and belief, the Generic Defendants did not timely implement the Black Box warning or revise the labels for their [p]ropoxyphene [p]roducts, or publish the information in the [Physicians’ Desk Reference], or communicate the information to prescribing physicians in Dear Health Care Professional letters or by other means. [See Record No. 287, p. 43 ¶ 205; see also id., p. 19 ¶ 96, p. 51 ¶ 241, p. 57 ¶ 258 (same).] Regardless of any preemption issues, the plaintiffs are still subject to basic pleading requirements. Thus, their complaints “must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). The plausibility standard is met “when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). It requires “more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Id. Under this standard, the plaintiffs’ conclusory allegations, which consist of “pure conjecture” that generic propoxyphene labels were not timely updated, fail. In re Fosamax (Alendronate Sodium) Prods. Liab. Litig. (No. II), No. 08-008 (GEB-LHG), 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135006, at *38 (D.N.J. Nov. 21, 2011) (“That a failure to timely update [drug] labeling ‘could have occurred’ is nothing ‘more than a sheer possibility’ and is not ‘sufficient to state a claim for relief.’” (quoting Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949)). Here, the complaints do not: (1) identify which of the Generic Defendant(s) allegedly failed to make the label changes; (2) elaborate on the allegation of untimeliness (e.g., length of delay or why it was unreasonable); or (3) explain -9-
  • 10. Case: 2:11-md-02226-DCR Doc #: 1305 Filed: 03/05/12 Page: 10 of 22 - Page ID#: 40075 how any alleged failure to update injured the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs thus have offered “nothing ‘more than a sheer possibility’” that one or more of the Generic Defendants may have failed to timely update the labeling on propoxyphene products after July 2009 and that the plaintiffs were injured as a result. Id. (quoting Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949). Preemption issues aside, these claims cannot withstand the Generic Defendants’ motion to dismiss.8 To the extent the plaintiffs seek to hold the Generic Defendants liable for failing to communicate the 2009 label change to health care professionals, their allegations are similarly deficient.9 Finally, the plaintiffs assert that Defendants Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Mylan, Inc. (collectively “Mylan”); and Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. are not protected by Mensing because they were the reference listed drug (“RLD”) holders for certain propoxyphene products. [See Record No. 568, pp. 35-37.] The Generic Defendants do not dispute that Mylan and Watson were RLD holders. However, they point to FDA publications indicating that the FDA, not the RLD holder, controls label changes if the new drug application (“NDA”) holder has removed its product from the market for reasons other than safety or effectiveness. See, e.g., 8 It appears that Mensing would apply to the failure-to-update claims in any event, as the Mensing Court, the Eighth Circuit on remand in Mensing, and the Sixth Circuit in Smith were presented with similar arguments and nevertheless found the plaintiffs’ failure-to-warn claims to be preempted. 9 In any event, the Mensing Court, adopting the FDA’s interpretation of its regulations, recognized that generic manufacturers are not free to send “Dear Doctor” letters containing new drug warning information, as such letters “would inaccurately imply a therapeutic difference between the brand and generic drugs and thus could be impermissibly ‘misleading.’” 131 S. Ct. at 2576 (citing 21 C.F.R. § 314.150(b)(3)). Several courts have held failure-to-communicate claims to be preempted in light of this statement from Mensing. See, e.g., Gross, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134895, at *10-11; In re Fosamax, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135006, at *29-30. Furthermore, as the Generic Defendants note, similar claims failed to sway either the Eighth Circuit on remand in Mensing or the Sixth Circuit in Smith. [See Record No. 383-2, p. 26.] -10-
  • 11. Case: 2:11-md-02226-DCR Doc #: 1305 Filed: 03/05/12 Page: 11 of 22 - Page ID#: 40076 Determination That Brethine (Terbutaline Sulfate) Injection Was Not Withdrawn from Sale for Reasons of Safety or Effectiveness, 72 Fed. Reg. 39,629 (July 12, 2007) (“If the FDA determines that labeling for this drug product should be revised to meet current standards, the Agency will advise [Abbreviated New Drug Application] applicants to submit such labeling.”). Further, they cite a recent federal case in which the same argument was rejected. See Moore v. Mylan, Inc., No. 1:11-CV-03037-MHS, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6897, at *20-25 (N.D. Ga. Jan. 5, 2012). The plaintiffs, meanwhile, provide no authority to support their contention that when a generic drug manufacturer becomes an RLD holder, it is thereby empowered to independently change the drug’s warning label. Thus, the Court is unpersuaded that Mylan and Watson are subject to liability based on their status as RLD holders. C. Misrepresentation, Fraud, Consumer Protection, Express Warranty, and Statutory Negligence All remaining claims relate to the sufficiency of the warnings on propoxyphene products and, therefore, are preempted in accordance with Mensing. As the plaintiffs admit, their fraud, misrepresentation, and consumer-protection claims challenge label content. [See Record No. 568, p. 39 n.20 (“Plaintiffs have alleged that these claims relate to misrepresentations on the products[’] labeling . . . .”); see Record No. 287, p. 62 ¶ 272 (describing representations allegedly made by the Generic Defendants “in their instructional materials and labeling”); see also id., p. 67 ¶ 287 (same).] Because the Generic Defendants were required to conform their labeling to that of the brand-name drugs, they could not have corrected any alleged misrepresentation without running afoul of federal law. Cf. Mensing, 131 S. Ct. at 2577-78. -11-
  • 12. Case: 2:11-md-02226-DCR Doc #: 1305 Filed: 03/05/12 Page: 12 of 22 - Page ID#: 40077 Likewise, any express warranty contained in the labeling was beyond the Generic Defendants’ control.10 These claims are therefore preempted per Mensing. The plaintiffs’ claim of statutory negligence is also preempted. Although they state in their response that this claim “assert[s] only traditional state common law causes of action” [Record No. 568, p. 41], as described in the complaint, it is premised on the Generic Defendants’ alleged “violat[ion of] federal standards for the sale of prescription drugs set forth in the [FDCA].” [Record No. 287, p. 69 ¶ 300; see id., p. 70 ¶ 301 (same)] The count includes a laundry list of federal regulations, mostly relating to labeling or “misbranding,” allegedly violated by the Generic Defendants. [See id., pp. 70-71 ¶¶ 301(a)-(i).] Such claims are precluded by Mensing insofar as they challenge the content of generic drug labels. To the extent the plaintiffs allege that the Generic Defendants failed to comply with the FDCA or FDA regulations, their claim is preempted pursuant to Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs’ Legal Committee, 531 U.S. 341 (2001). In Buckman, the Supreme Court held that because the exclusive power to enforce the FDCA rests with the FDA, state-law claims “based on failure to properly communicate with the FDA” were preempted. Mensing, 131 S. Ct. at 2578 (citing Buckman, 531 U.S. 341). Because there is no private right to enforce the FDCA, see Buckman, 531 U.S. at 349 n.4, the plaintiffs’ statutory negligence claim, which is based solely on alleged FDCA violations, must fail. Finally, the plaintiffs acknowledge that if their underlying tort claims are preempted, their derivative claims — e.g., wrongful death, survivorship, unjust 10 Again, the plaintiffs insist that precedent is on their side but cite cases that are not on point: Altria Group, Inc. v. Good, 555 U.S. 70 (2008), Bates v. Dow Agrosciences LLC, 544 U.S. 431 (2005), and Cipollone v. Liggett Group, 505 U.S. 504 (1992), dealt with express preemption, not impossibility preemption. -12-
  • 13. Case: 2:11-md-02226-DCR Doc #: 1305 Filed: 03/05/12 Page: 13 of 22 - Page ID#: 40078 enrichment, and loss of consortium — likewise cannot survive the Generic Defendants’ motions to dismiss. [See Record No. 568, p. 42.] D. Discovery/Amendment of Complaints The Court rejects the plaintiffs’ contention that they should be allowed discovery and another chance to amend their complaints. “Plaintiffs [are] not entitled to an advisory opinion from the Court informing them of the deficiencies of the complaint and then an opportunity to cure those deficiencies.” Winget v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 537 F.3d 565, 573 (6th Cir. 2008) (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted). Under Iqbal, plaintiffs are not permitted to conduct discovery in order to fix factually deficient complaints, even where the necessary information is within the defendant’s exclusive possession. New Albany Tractor, Inc. v. Louisville Tractor, Inc., 650 F.3d 1046, 1051 (6th Cir. 2011) (citing Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1954). Rather, in such cases, dismissal with prejudice is proper. See id. at 1053. Furthermore, the Court should deny leave to amend a pleading if amendment would be futile. Winget, 537 F.3d at 573. Counsel for the plaintiffs acknowledged at oral argument that if the Court found their claims to be preempted, there would be no reason to amend the complaints. Likewise, insofar as certain plaintiffs individually opposed the Generic Defendants’ motions to dismiss on the ground that they had not had an opportunity to amend their complaints to conform to the “master complaint” (i.e., the Alix Amended Complaint), the futility of such an amendment renders their request moot. [See Record No. 574.] III. CONCLUSION In accordance with this memorandum opinion, it is hereby -13-
  • 14. Case: 2:11-md-02226-DCR Doc #: 1305 Filed: 03/05/12 Page: 14 of 22 - Page ID#: 40079 ORDERED that the Generic Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [MDL Record No. 383] and First Supplemental Motion to Dismiss [MDL Record No. 458] are GRANTED. Subject to previous orders,11 the claims asserted against the following defendants in the following actions are DISMISSED, with prejudice: • [Civil Action No. 2: 11-175; Record No. 85]: Defendant Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.; • [Civil Action No. 2: 11-179; Record No. 49]: Defendant Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.; • [Civil Action No. 2: 11-182; Record No. 76]: Defendant Qualitest Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Defendant Vintage Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; • [Civil Action No. 2: 11-183; Record No. 45]: Defendant Propst Distribution, Inc., formerly known as Qualitest Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Defendant Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Defendant Teva Biopharmaceuticals USA, Inc.; and Defendant Vintage Pharmaceuticals, LLC; • [Civil Action No. 2: 11-184; Record No. 32]: Defendant Brenn Distribution, Inc., formerly known as Qualitest Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Defendant Brenn Manufacturing, Inc., formerly known as Vintage Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Defendant Vintage Pharmaceuticals, LLC; Defendant Generics International (US), Inc.; Defendant Generics Bidco I, LLC; Defendant Generics Bidco II, LLC; and Defendant Generics International (US Parent), Inc.; 11 The Court recognizes that some of the defendants listed have already been dismissed voluntarily. -14-
  • 15. Case: 2:11-md-02226-DCR Doc #: 1305 Filed: 03/05/12 Page: 15 of 22 - Page ID#: 40080 • [Civil Action No. 2: 11-185; Record Nos. 68 and 105]: Defendants Mylan Inc.; Defendant Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Defendant Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.; Defendant Vintage Pharmaceuticals, LLC; Defendant Generics International (US), Inc.; Defendant Generics Bidco I, LLC; Defendant Generics Bidco II, LLC; Defendant Generics International (US Parent), Inc.; Defendant Brenn Distribution, Inc., formerly known as Qualitest Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Defendant Propst Distribution, Inc., formerly known as Qualitest Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Defendant Brenn Manufacturing, Inc., formerly known as Vintage Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Defendant Covidien Inc.; and Defendant Mallinckrodt Inc.; • [Civil Action No. 2: 11-186; Record Nos. 51 and 89]: Defendant Teva Biopharmaceuticals USA, Inc., misnamed as Teva Biopharmaceuticals, Inc.; Defendant Covidien Inc.; Defendant Mallinckrodt Inc.; Defendant Qualitest Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Brenn Distribution, Inc., formerly known as Qualitest Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Propst Distribution, Inc., formerly known as Qualitest Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Brenn Manufacturing, Inc., formerly known as Vintage Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Mylan, Inc.; Vintage Pharmaceuticals, LLC; Generics International (US), Inc.; Generics Bidco I, LLC; Generics Bidco II, LLC; Generics International (US Parent), Inc.; Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.; • [Civil Action No. 2: 11-189; Record Nos. 68 and 98]: Defendant Qualitest Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Defendant Propst Distribution, Inc., formerly known as -15-
  • 16. Case: 2:11-md-02226-DCR Doc #: 1305 Filed: 03/05/12 Page: 16 of 22 - Page ID#: 40081 Qualitest Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Defendant Generics International (US), Inc.; Defendant Generics International (US Parent), Inc.; Defendant Generics Bidco I, LLC; Defendant Vintage Pharmaceuticals, LLC; Defendant Generics Bidco II, LLC; Defendant Vintage Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Defendant Brenn Manufacturing, Inc., formerly known as Vintage Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and Defendant Brenn Distribution, Inc., formerly known as Qualitest Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; • [Civil Action No. 2: 11-190; Record Nos. 78, 99 and 100]: Defendant Generics Bidco I, LLC; Defendant Vintage Pharmaceuticals, LLC; Defendant Propst Distribution, Inc., formerly known as Qualitest Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Defendant Covidien, Inc.; Defendant Mallinckrodt, Inc.; Defendant Generics International (US), Inc.; Defendant Generics International (US Parent), Inc.; Defendant Generics Bidco II, LLC; Defendant Brenn Manufacturing, Inc., formerly known as Vintage Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Defendant Brenn Distribution, Inc., formerly known as Qualitest Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and Defendant Vintage Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; • [Civil Action No. 2: 11-191; Record Nos. 56 and 98]: Defendant Mylan Inc.; Defendant Brenn Distribution, Inc., formerly known as Qualitest Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Defendant Propst Distribution, Inc., formerly known as Qualitest Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Defendant Brenn Manufacturing, Inc., formerly known as Vintage Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Defendant Vintage Pharmaceuticals, LLC; Defendant Generics International (US), Inc.; Defendant Generics Bidco I, LLC; -16-
  • 17. Case: 2:11-md-02226-DCR Doc #: 1305 Filed: 03/05/12 Page: 17 of 22 - Page ID#: 40082 Defendant Generics Bidco II, LLC; Defendant Generics International (US Parent), Inc.; Defendant Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.; Defendant Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Defendant Teva Biopharmaceuticals USA, Inc., misnamed Teva Biopharmaceuticals, Inc.; Defendant Covidien Inc.; and Defendant Mallinckrodt Inc.; • [Civil Action No. 2: 11-195; Record Nos. 71 and 87]: Defendant Qualitest Pharmaceuticals; Defendant Vintage Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Defendant Vintage Pharmaceuticals, LLC; Defendant Generics International (US), Inc.; Defendant Generics Bidco I, LLC; Defendant Generics Bidco II, LLC; Defendant Generics International (US Parent), Inc.; Defendant Mylan Inc.; Defendant Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Defendant Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.; Defendant Teva Biopharmaceuticals USA, Inc., misnamed as Teva Biopharmaceuticals, Inc.; Defendant Brenn Distribution, Inc., formerly known as Qualitest Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Defendant Propst Distribution, Inc., formerly known as Qualitest Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Defendant Covidien Inc.; and Defendant Mallinckrodt Inc.; • [Civil Action No. 2: 11-196; Record Nos. 41 and 51]: Defendant Covidien, Inc. and Defendant Mallinckrodt Holdings, LLC; • [Civil Action No. 2: 11-197; Record Nos. 66 and 104]: Defendant Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.; Defendant Mylan Inc.; Defendant Brenn Distribution, Inc., formerly known as Qualitest Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Defendant Propst Distribution, Inc., formerly known as Qualitest Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Defendant -17-
  • 18. Case: 2:11-md-02226-DCR Doc #: 1305 Filed: 03/05/12 Page: 18 of 22 - Page ID#: 40083 Brenn Manufacturing, Inc., formerly known as Vintage Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Defendant Vintage Pharmaceuticals, LLC; Defendant Generics International (US), Inc.; Defendant Generics Bidco I, LLC; Defendant Generics Bidco II, LLC; Defendant Generics International (US Parent), Inc.; Defendant Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Defendant Covidien Inc.; Defendant Mallinckrodt Inc.; and Defendant Teva Biopharmaceuticals USA, misnamed as Teva Biopharmaceuticals, Inc.; • [Civil Action No. 2: 11-199; Record Nos. 36 and 40]: Defendant Covidien, Inc. and Defendant Mallinckrodt, Inc.; • [Civil Action No. 2: 11-200; Record No. 41]: Defendant Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.; Defendant Vintage Pharmaceuticals, LLC; Defendant Generics International (US), Inc.; Defendant Generics Bidco I, LLC; and Defendant Generics International (US Parent), Inc.; • [Civil Action No. 2: 11-201; Record No. 41]: Defendant Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.; • [Civil Action No. 2: 11-206; Record No. 67]: Defendant Vintage Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Defendant Qualitest Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; • [Civil Action No. 2: 11-209; Record No. 37]: Defendant Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.; • [Civil Action No. 2: 11-210; Record No. 48]: Defendant Vintage Pharmaceuticals, LLC and Defendant Generics Bidco I, LLC; -18-
  • 19. Case: 2:11-md-02226-DCR Doc #: 1305 Filed: 03/05/12 Page: 19 of 22 - Page ID#: 40084 • [Civil Action No. 2: 11-212; Record No. 32]: Defendant Vintage Pharmaceuticals, LLC and Defendant Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.; • [Civil Action No. 2: 11-213; Record No. 58 and 79]: Defendant Qualitest Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Defendant Generics Bidco II, LLC; Defendant Vintage Pharmaceuticals LLC; Defendant Generics International (US), Inc.; Defendant Generics Bidco I, LLC; Generics International (US Parent), Inc.; Defendant Brenn Manufacturing, Inc., formerly known as Vintage Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and Defendant Brenn Distribution, Inc., formerly known as Qualitest Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; • [Civil Action No. 2: 11-221; Record No. 30]: Defendant Watson Pharmaceuticals (New Jersey), Inc.; • [Civil Action No. 2: 11-295; Record Nos. 17, 49, and 56]: Defendant Generics Bidco II, LLC; Defendant Vintage Pharmaceuticals, LLC; Defendant Generics International (US), Inc.; Defendant Generics Bidco I, LLC; Defendant Generics International (US Parent), Inc.; Defendant Mylan Inc.; Defendant Qualitest Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Defendant Brenn Manufacturing, Inc., formerly known as Vintage Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and Defendant Brenn Distribution, Inc., formerly known as Qualitest Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; • [Civil Action No. 2: 11-296; Record Nos. 35, 57, 67, and 73]: Defendant Mylan Inc.; Defendant Generics Bidco II, LLC; Defendant Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, -19-
  • 20. Case: 2:11-md-02226-DCR Doc #: 1305 Filed: 03/05/12 Page: 20 of 22 - Page ID#: 40085 Inc.; Defendant Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Defendant Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Defendant Covidien Inc.; and Defendant Mallinckrodt Inc.; • [Civil Action No. 2: 11-297; Record Nos. 37, 60, and 75]: Defendant Mylan Inc.; Defendant Generics Bidco II, LLC; Defendant Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.; Defendant Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Defendant Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Defendant Covidien Inc.; and Defendant Mallinckrodt Inc.; • [Civil Action No. 2: 11-298; Record Nos. 31, 52, and 69]: Defendant Mylan Inc.; Defendant Generics Bidco II, LLC; Defendant Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.; Defendant Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Defendant Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Defendant Covidien Inc.; and Defendant Mallinckrodt Inc.; • [Civil Action No. 2: 11-299; Record Nos. 31, 52, and 69]: Defendant Mylan Inc.; Defendant Generics Bidco II, LLC; Defendant Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.; Defendant Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Defendant Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Defendant Covidien Inc.; and Defendant Mallinckrodt Inc.; • [Civil Action No. 2: 11-300; Record Nos. 33, 55, 65, and 70]: Defendant Mylan Inc.; Defendant Generics Bidco II, LLC; Defendant Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.; Defendant Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Defendant Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Defendant Covidien Inc.; and Defendant Mallinckrodt Inc.; • [Civil Action No. 2: 11-301; Record Nos. 31, 52, and 69]: Defendant Mylan Inc.; Defendant Generics Bidco II, LLC; Defendant Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.; -20-
  • 21. Case: 2:11-md-02226-DCR Doc #: 1305 Filed: 03/05/12 Page: 21 of 22 - Page ID#: 40086 Defendant Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Defendant Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Defendant Covidien Inc.; and Defendant Mallinckrodt Inc.; • [Civil Action No. 2: 11-307; Record No. 15]: Defendant Brenn Distribution, Inc., formerly known as Qualitest Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; • [Civil Action No. 2: 11-311; Record No. 16] Defendant Brenn Distribution, Inc., formerly known as Qualitest Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; • [Civil Action No. 2: 11-312; Record No. 15]: Defendant Brenn Distribution, Inc., formerly known as Qualitest Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and • [Civil Action No. 2: 11-325; Record No. 8]: Defendant Qualitest Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Additionally, the motions to dismiss filed by Defendants Covidien, Inc. and Mallinckrodt, Inc. [MDL Record No. 674] and Defendants Mylan, Inc. and Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. [MDL Record No. 684] in Civil Action No. 2: 11-352, which are based on the same arguments addressed herein, are likewise GRANTED. The claims asserted against Defendants Covidien, Inc.; Mallinckrodt, Inc.; Mylan, Inc.; and Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. by Plaintiff Marcia Miller are DISMISSED, with prejudice. In light of the Court’s resolution of the Generic Defendants’ joint motions to dismiss, the supplemental Motions to Dismiss filed by Defendants Covidien, Inc.; Mallinckrodt, Inc.; and/or Mallinckrodt Holdings, LLC [MDL Record Nos. 459, 469, 474, 542, 544, 546, 555, 557, and 559]; Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. [MDL Record Nos. 462, 561, 562, 563, 564, 565, and -21-
  • 22. Case: 2:11-md-02226-DCR Doc #: 1305 Filed: 03/05/12 Page: 22 of 22 - Page ID#: 40087 566]; Teva Biopharmaceuticals USA, Inc. [MDL Record No. 567]; and Mylan, Inc. and/or Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. [MDL Record Nos. 503, 517, and 520] are DENIED as moot. Finally, because the plaintiffs’ proposed First Supplemental and Amended Complaints in Civil Action Nos. 2: 11-307, 2: 11-311, and 2: 11-312 seek to assert claims against defendants dismissed from this action under the rationale set forth above and in other opinions issued this date, their motions to file First Supplemental Amended Complaints [MDL Record Nos. 1111, 1113, and 1114] are DENIED. This 5th day of March, 2012. -22-