Thursday, June 24, 2010

Class Action Denial Federal Cheat Sheet

Almost from the day this blog was founded, we’ve been arguing that class actions have no place in prescription medical product liability litigation. We’ve put up several posts containing lists of cases to that effect - but none of them were complete (or purported to be).


One of the things that we’ve often thought about doing someday was putting together a truly comprehensive list of all the decisions denying class certification in prescription medical product liability litigation.  Well, today’s that day, at least as far as federal class action litigation (more important since the passage of the Class Action Fairness Act) is concerned.  This cheat sheet assembles all the failed Rule 23 class actions – and there’s a lot of them – in product liability actions involving prescription drugs, medical devices, and similar products.

This list only includes cases that deny class certification across the board.  We’re not including any opinions that deny even 90% of the claims sought to be certified, if they actually allow certification of any class action.  We're picky that way.

For reasons we’ve discussed, we don’t expect plaintiffs' repeated failure to succeed with these sorts of class actions to make them go away, given the (we think erroneous) effect that even bogus class actions can have on the statute of limitations in some jurisdictions.  Given that incentive, plaintiffs will keep trying and failing - and we’ll be updating this cheat sheet as needed.

  1. Ryan v. Eli Lilly & Co., 84 F.R.D. 230 (D.S.C. July 10, 1979) (DES – increased risk of injury).  Statewide class certification denied.  No predominance due to plaintiff-specific variations.
  2. McElhaney v. Eli Lilly & Co., 93 F.R.D. 875 (D.S.D. April 8, 1982) (DES – increased risk of injury).  Statewide class certification denied.  No properly defined class.  No typicality and predominance due to plaintiff-specific variations.  No adequacy.
  3. In Re Northern District of California, Dalkon Shield IUD Products Liability Litigation, 693 F.2d 847 (9th Cir. June 18, 1982) (Dalkon Shield – personal injury).  Nationwide punitive damages class certification reversed on mandamus.  Statewide class certification reversed on mandamus.  Limited fund certification rejected.  No typicality.  No predominance due to plaintiff-specific variations.  No superiority.
  4. Thompson v. Procter & Gamble Co., 1982 WL 114 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 8, 1982) (tampon – personal injury, increased risk of injury).  Nationwide class certification denied.  Mandatory class improper due to state law variations.  No predominance due to plaintiff-specific variations.
  5. Mertens v. Abbott Laboratories, 99 F.R.D. 38 (D.N.H. July 27, 1983) (DES – personal injury). Statewide class certification denied.  Mandatory class improper due to plaintiff-specific variations.  No predominance due to plaintiff-specific variations.  No superiority.
  6. Payton v. Abbott Laboratories, 100 F.R.D. 336 (D. Mass. July 30, 1983) (DES – increased risk of injury).  Statewide class decertified.  No predominance due to plaintiff-specific variations.  No superiority and manageability.
  7. In re Bendectin Products Liability Litigation, 749 F.2d 300 (6th Cir. Oct. 26, 1984) (Bendectin – personal injury).  Nationwide settlement class certification reversed on mandamus.  Limited fund certification rejected.
  8. Linkous v. Medtronic, Inc., 1985 WL 2602 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 4, 1985) (pacemaker – personal injury, medical monitoring, increased risk of injury).  Nationwide class certification denied.  No predominance due to plaintiff-specific variations.  No superiority.  No issue certification as to punitive damages.
  9. In re Tetracycline Cases, 107 F.R.D. 719 (W.D. Mo. Oct. 1, 1985) (Tetracycline – personal injury).  Statewide class certification denied.  No issue certification due to lack of superiority and plaintiff-specific variations.
  10. Rall v. Medtronic, Inc., 1986 WL 22271 (D. Nev. Oct. 15, 1986) (pacemaker – personal injury, emotional distress from increased risk).  Nationwide class certification denied.  No commonality due to multiple products and plaintiff-specific variations.  No typicality due to plaintiff-specific variations.
  11. Raye v. Medtronic Corp., 696 F. Supp. 1273 (D. Minn. Oct. 19, 1988) (pacemaker – personal injury).  Nationwide class certification denied.  No predominance due to multiple state laws and plaintiff-specific variations.
  12. Mehornay v. Pfizer Inc., 1991 WL 540731 (C.D. Cal. June 3, 1991) (heart valve prosthesis – emotional distress from increased risk).  Nationwide class certification denied.  No typicality due to plaintiff-specific variations.  No predominance due to plaintiff-specific variations.  No superiority.
  13. Pasternak v. Upjohn Co., 1994 WL 16495152 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 19, 1994) (Halcion – personal injury, emotional distress, economic loss).  Nationwide class certification denied.  No predominance due to plaintiff-specific variations.  No typicality.
  14. In re Orthopedic Bone Screw Products Liability Litigation, 1995 WL 273597 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 22, 1995) (pedicle screws – personal injury, medical monitoring).  Nationwide class certification denied.  Limited fund certification rejected.  No predominance due to plaintiff-specific variations.
  15. Kurczi v. Eli Lilly & Co., 160 F.R.D. 667 (N.D. Ohio Feb. 27, 1995) (DES – personal injury).  Statewide class certification denied.  No commonality due to multiple defendants, multiple state laws, and plaintiff-specific variations.  No typicality.  No adequacy due to conflicts of interest.  No predominance due to plaintiff-specific variations.  No superiority.
  16. In re Rhone-Poulenc Rorer, Inc., 51 F.3d 1293 (7th Cir. March 16, 1995) (blood products – personal injury).  Nationwide class certification reversed on mandamus.  No manageability due to multiple state laws.  No issue certification due to Seventh Amendment jury trial right.
  17. Martin v. American Medical Systems, 1995 WL 680630 (S.D. Ind. Oct. 25, 1995) (penile implant – personal injury).  Nationwide class certification denied.  No typicality and adequacy due to plaintiff-specific variations, particularly varied injuries. No predominance due to plaintiff-specific variations.  No superiority.
  18. In re American Medical Systems, Inc., 75 F.3d 1069 (6th Cir. Feb. 15, 1996) (penile prosthesis – personal injury).  Nationwide class certification reversed on mandamus.  No commonality and predominance due to plaintiff-specific variations.  No typicality and adequacy.
  19. Harding v. Tambrands Inc., 165 F.R.D. 623 (D. Kan. March 15, 1996) (tampon – personal injury).  Nationwide class certification denied.  No predominance due to multiple products and multiple state laws.  No superiority.  No manageability due to multiple state laws.  No issue certification.  Reargument denied, Hayes v. Playtex Family Products Corp., 168 F.R.D. 292 (D. Kan. 1996).
  20. In re Norplant Contraceptive Products Liability Litigation, 168 F.R.D. 577 (E.D. Tex. Aug.. 5, 1996) (Norplant – personal injury).  Nationwide class certification denied.  No predominance and superiority due to immature tort.
  21. Valentino v. Carter-Wallace, Inc., 97 F.3d 1227 (9th Cir. Oct 7, 1996) (Felbatol – personal injury, increased risk of injury).  Nationwide settlement class certification reversed.  Inadequate consideration of predominance and superiority issues.
  22. Haley v. Medtronic, Inc., 169 F.R.D. 643 (C.D. Cal. Dec 12, 1996) (pacemaker lead – personal injury, fraud, medical monitoring).  Nationwide class certification denied.  No manageability due to multiple state laws, large number of plaintiffs, and plaintiff-specific variations.  No issue certification due to multiple state laws.  No medical monitoring injunctive class due to monetary damages.
  23. Kemp v. Medtronic Inc., 1998 WL 35161989 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 11, 1998) (pacemaker lead – personal injury).  Statewide class certification denied.  No predominance and superiority due to plaintiff-specific variations.  No manageability.
  24. Fisher v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., 181 F.R.D. 365 (N.D. Ill. May 28, 1998) (Stadol – personal injury, consumer fraud).  Nationwide class certification denied.  No predominance due to plaintiff-specific variations, particularly causation.  No manageability due to multiple state laws.  No superiority.
  25. Woodell v. Proctor & Gamble Manufacturing Co., 1998 WL 686767 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 29, 1998) (Aleve – injunctive relief, personal injury).  Nationwide and statewide class certification denied.  Injunctive relief does not predominate.  No superiority due to plaintiff-specific variations.
  26. Dhamer v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., 183 F.R.D. 520 (N.D. Ill. Nov 18, 1998) (Stadol – personal injury, medical monitoring, consumer fraud/economic loss).  Nationwide class certification denied; addiction subclass denied.  No medical monitoring injunctive class due to monetary damages.  No predominance due to plaintiff-specific variations, particularly learned intermediary.  No manageability due to multiple state laws.
  27. Rosmer v. Pfizer, Inc., 2001 WL 34010613 (D.S.C. Mar 30, 2001) (Trovan – medical monitoring).  Nationwide class certification denied.  No adequacy due to South Carolina’s rejection of medical monitoring.
  28. Zinser v. Accufix Research Institute, Inc., 253 F.3d 1180 (9th Cir. June 15, 2001), amended, 273 F.3d 1266 (9th Cir. 2001) (pacemaker lead – personal injury, medical monitoring).  Denial of nationwide class certification affirmed.  No predominance due to multiple state laws and plaintiff-specific variations.  No superiority.  No manageability due to plaintiff-specific variations.  No medical monitoring subclass.  No medical monitoring injunctive class due to monetary damages
  29. Neely v. Ethicon, Inc., 2001 WL 1090204 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 15, 2001) (Vicryl suture – personal injury).  Nationwide class certification denied.  No issue certification due to Seventh Amendment jury trial right.  No predominance due to multiple state laws and plaintiff-specific variations.
  30. Block v. Abbott Laboratories, 2002 WL 485364 (N.D. Ill. March 29, 2002) (Total beta-hCG test kit – injunctive relief, consumer fraud).  Nationwide class certification denied.  No predominance due to multiple state laws and plaintiff-specific variations.  No adequacy due to lack of standing.
  31. In re Propulsid Products Liability Litigation, 208 F.R.D. 133 (E.D. La. June 4, 2002) (Propulsid – medical monitoring).  Nationwide class certification denied.  No medical monitoring injunctive class due to monetary damages.  No manageability due to multiple state laws.  No predominance due to plaintiff-specific variations.
  32. In re Phenylpropanolamine Products Liability Litigation, 208 F.R.D. 625 (W.D. Wash. June 5, 2002) (PPA – personal injury, increased risk of injury, emotional distress from increased risk).  Nationwide and statewide class certification denied.  No proper class definition due to plaintiff-specific variations.  No predominance due to multiple products and plaintiff-specific variations.  No limited fund or other mandatory class.
  33. Lewallen v. Medtronic USA, Inc., 2002 WL 31300899 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2002) (AneuRx stent – medical monitoring, fraud).  Nationwide class certification denied.  No medical monitoring injunctive class due to monetary damages.  No predominance due to plaintiff-specific variations and multiple state laws.  No superiority.
  34. In re Rezulin Products Liability Litigation, 210 F.R.D. 61 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 12, 2002) (Rezulin – personal injury, economic loss, medical monitoring, fraud, restitution).  Nationwide class certification denied.  No predominance due to plaintiff-specific variations particularly causation and reliance, and economic loss and multiple state laws.  No superiority.  No medical monitoring injunctive class due to monetary damages.  No medical monitoring subclass due to plaintiff-specific variations and multiple state laws.  Reconsideration denied, In re Rezulin Products Liability Litigation, 224 F.R.D. 346 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (no medical monitoring injunctive class).
  35. Foister v. Purdue Pharma Co., 2002 WL 1008608 (E.D. Ky. Feb. 26, 2002) (Oxycontin – personal injury).  Nationwide class certification denied.  Improper class definition due to plaintiff-specific variations.  No numerosity.  No commonality, typicality, and adequacy due to plaintiff-specific variations.
  36. Gevedon v. Purdue Pharma Co., 212 F.R.D. 333 (E.D. Ky. Oct. 17, 2002) (Oxycontin –personal injury).  Statewide class certification denied.  Improper class definition due to plaintiff-specific variations.  No adequacy because class representatives not within class definition.  No numerosity.  No typicality and adequacy due to plaintiff-specific variations.
  37. In re Paxil Litigation, 212 F.R.D. 539 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2003) (Paxil – personal injury, medical monitoring, economic loss, fraud).  Multistate class certification denied.  No issue certification due to multiple state laws.  No proper class definition, manageability, typicality, and adequacy due to plaintiff-specific variations.  No predominance due to plaintiff-specific variations, particularly causation.  No superiority.  No injunctive or punitive damages subclasses.  No limited fund.
  38. In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability Litigation, 214 F.R.D. 614 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 7, 2003) (PPA – economic loss).  Nationwide class certification denied.  No manageability due to proof of injury and multiple products.  No fluid recovery.  No superiority.
  39. Benner v. Becton Dickinson & Co., 214 F.R.D. 157 (S.D.N.Y. March 28, 2003) (needles – personal injury, emotional distress).  Statewide class certification denied.  No commonality and typicality due to multiple products.  No predominance due to plaintiff-specific variations.  No issue certification.  No superiority.
  40. In re Paxil Litigation, 218 F.R.D. 242 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 29, 2003) (Paxil – economic loss/consumer fraud).  Equitable and causation nationwide issue subclass certification denied.  No typicality and adequacy due to lack of cohesion.  No equitable subclass due to monetary damages.  No issue certification.
  41. In re Baycol Products Liability Litigation, 218 F.R.D. 197 (D. Minn. Sept. 17, 2003) (Baycol – personal injury, medical monitoring, economic loss).  Nationwide class certification denied.  No typicality due to plaintiff-specific variations.  No adequacy.  No predominance due to multiple state laws and plaintiff-specific variations.  No issue certification.  No superiority.  No medical monitoring class due to multiple state laws and plaintiff-specific variations.  No restitution class due to plaintiff-specific variations.  No punitive damages class.
  42. Perez v. Metabolife International, Inc., 218 F.R.D. 262 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 26, 2003) (ephedra – medical monitoring).  Nationwide and statewide medical monitoring class certification denied.  Improper class definition due to plaintiff-specific variations and multiple state laws.  No commonality, typicality, adequacy, predominance, and superiority due to plaintiff-specific variations.  No injunctive or other mandatory class.  No conditional certification.
  43. Wethington v. Purdue Pharma L.P., 218 F.R.D. 577 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 30, 2003) (Oxycontin – personal injury).  Multistate class certification denied.  No commonality due to plaintiff-specific variations, particularly learned intermediary.
  44. Harris v. Purdue Pharmaceuticals L.P., 218 F.R.D. 590 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 30, 2003) (Oxycontin – medical monitoring).  Nationwide class certification denied.  No commonality or cohesiveness due to plaintiff-specific variations, particularly learned intermediary.
  45. Campbell v. Purdue Pharma, L.P., 2004 WL 5840206, slip op. (E.D. Mo. June 25, 2004) (Oxycontin – personal injury, medical monitoring).  Statewide class certification denied.  No commonality, typicality, adequacy, predominance, and superiority due to plaintiff-specific variations.  No injunctive or other mandatory class.  No medical monitoring injunctive class due to monetary damages.
  46. Bostick v. St. Jude Medical, Inc., 2004 WL 3313614 (W.D. Tenn. Aug. 17, 2004) (Symmetry aortic connector – medical monitoring, personal injury).  Nationwide and statewide class certification denied.  No commonality due to multiple state laws.  No standing due to Tennessee’s rejection of medical monitoring.  No proper class definition, typicality and adequacy due to plaintiff-specific variations.
  47. Zehel-Miller v. AstraZenaca Pharmaceuticals, L.P., 223 F.R.D. 659 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 25, 2004) (Seroquel – medical monitoring, economic loss).  Nationwide class certification denied.  No medical monitoring injunctive class due to monetary damages.  No medical monitoring class due to multiple state laws and plaintiff-specific variations defeating cohesiveness.  No refund class due to multiple state laws and plaintiff-specific variations.
  48. In re Factor VIII or IX Concentrate Blood Products Litigation, 2005 WL 497782 (N.D. Ill. March 1, 2005) (blood products – personal injury, fraud).  Worldwide class certification denied.  No issue certification due to multiple state/national laws and undue settlement pressure.
  49. Foster v. St. Jude Medical, Inc., 229 F.R.D. 599 (D. Minn. July 26, 2005) (Symmetry bypass connector – medical monitoring).  Nationwide class certification denied.  No adequacy due to claim splitting.  No predominance due to multiple state laws.  No superiority due to improper class definition incorporating plaintiff-specific variations.  No injunctive medical monitoring class due to lack of cohesiveness.
  50. In re Prempro Products Liability Litigation, 230 F.R.D. 555 (E.D. Ark. Aug. 30, 2005) (hormone replacement therapy – medical monitoring, economic loss/consumer fraud).  Multistate class certification denied.  No manageability or superiority due to multiple state laws.  No predominance and cohesiveness due to multiple state laws and plaintiff-specific variations, particularly reliance.
  51. Dumas v. Albers Medical, Inc., 2005 WL 2172030 (W.D. Mo. Sept. 7, 2005) (counterfeit Lipitor – economic loss/consumer fraud/RICO).  Nationwide class action denied.  No predominance due to plaintiff-specific variations.  No manageability due to lack of proper class definition.  No fluid recovery.
  52. In re St. Jude Medical, Inc., 425 F.3d 1116 (8th Cir. Oct. 12, 2005) (Silzone heart valve – medical monitoring, economic loss/consumer fraud).  Certification of nationwide class reversed.  Failure to conduct choice of law analysis.  No medical monitoring class due to plaintiff-specific variations.
  53. Sweet v. Pfizer, 232 F.R.D. 360 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2005) (Mirapex – personal injury, loss of consortium, economic loss).  Nationwide and statewide class certification denied.  No typicality and superiority due to plaintiff-specific variations.  No adequacy due to counsel’s incompetence.  No predominance due to multiple state laws.  No mandatory class due to lack of cohesiveness.  No loss of consortium subclass.
  54. Sanders v. Johnson & Johnson, 2006 WL 1541033 (D.N.J. June 2, 2006) (Intergel adhesion prevention solution – personal injury, medical monitoring).  Nationwide class certification denied.  No predominance and cohesiveness due to multiple state laws and plaintiff-specific variations.
  55. In re Vioxx Products Liability Litigation, 239 F.R.D. 450 (E.D. La. Nov. 22, 2006) (Vioxx – personal injury).  Nationwide class certification denied.  No typicality, adequacy, predominance, and superiority due to multiple state laws and plaintiff-specific variations, particularly causation and damages.  No issue certification.
  56. Blain v. Smithkline Beecham Corp., 240 F.R.D. 179 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 25, 2007) (Paxil – personal injury).  Nationwide class certification denied.  No commonality, typicality, adequacy, and predominance due to plaintiff-specific variations.  No superiority.  No manageability due to multiple state laws.  No issue certification.
  57. Miller v. Janssen Pharmaceutica Products, L.P., 2007 WL 1295824 (S.D. Ill. May 1, 2007) (Duragesic patch – personal injury, economic loss/consumer fraud).  Nationwide class certification denied.  Improper class definition due to plaintiff-specific variations.  No predominance or manageability due to plaintiff-specific variations, particularly causation, damages, and reliance.
  58. In re Neurontin Marketing & Sale Practices Litigation, 244 F.R.D. 89 (D. Mass. Aug. 29, 2007) (Neurontin – economic loss/consumer fraud/RICO).  Nationwide class certification denied.  No predominance due to plaintiff-specific variations, particularly learned intermediary and causation/reliance.  Improper class definition due to plaintiff-specific variations.
  59. In re Aredia & Zometa Products Liability Litigation, 2007 WL 3012972 (M.D. Tenn. Oct. 10, 2007) (Aredia/Zometa – medical monitoring).  Multistate certification denied.  Improper class definition due to plaintiff-specific variations.  No typicality and adequacy due to multiple state laws and plaintiff-specific variations.
  60. In re Fosamax Products Liability Litigation, 248 F.R.D. 389 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 3, 2008) (Fosamax – medical monitoring).  Statewide certification denied.  Improper class definition due to plaintiff-specific variations.  No typicality and predominance due to plaintiff-specific variations.  No adequacy due to plaintiff-specific variations and claim splitting.  No superiority and manageability.
  61. Krueger v. Wyeth, Inc., 2008 WL 481956 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 19, 2008) (hormone replacement therapy – economic loss/consumer fraud).  Statewide certification denied.  No adequacy due to claim splitting.
  62. St. Jude Medical, Inc., Silzone Heart Valve Products Liability Litigation, 522 F.3d 836 (8th Cir. Apr. 9, 2008) (Silzone heart valve – economic loss/consumer fraud).  Nationwide class certification reversed.  No predominance due to plaintiff-specific variations, particularly reliance and causation.  No issue certification.
  63. In re Baycol Products Litigation, 265 F.R.D. 453 (D. Minn. Aug. 25, 2008) (Baycol – economic loss/consumer fraud).  Statewide certification denied.  No predominance due to plaintiff-specific variations, particularly causation.
  64. Ballew v. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., 2008 WL 4831481 (E.D. Wash. Oct. 31, 2008) (Zicam – personal injury, economic loss/consumer fraud).  Statewide issue certification denied.  Single abstract question does not create commonality, typicality, adequacy, and predominance.  No mandatory class certification.  No injunctive class due to monetary damages.  No superiority.
  65. Thompson v. Bayer Corp., 2009 WL 362982 (E.D. Ark. Feb. 12, 2009) (Vitamins – economic loss/unjust enrichment).  Nationwide class certification denied.  No predominance and superiority due to multiple state laws.
  66. In re Neurontin Marketing, Sales Practices & Products Liability Litigation, 257 F.R.D. 315 (D. Mass. May 13, 2009) (Neurontin – economic loss/consumer fraud/RICO/unjust enrichment).  Nationwide class certification denied.  No predominance due to plaintiff-specific variations, particularly causation and learned intermediary.  No fraud on the market.  Reconsideration denied, slip op. (D. Mass. May 17, 2011).
  67. In re St. Jude Medical Inc. Silzone Heart Valves Products Liability Litigation, 2009 WL 1789376 (D. Minn. June 23, 2009) (Silzone heart valve – economic loss/consumer fraud/omissions).  Nationwide class allegations stricken.  No predominance due to plaintiff-specific variations, particularly causation and reliance.
  68. Thompson v. Bayer Corp., 2009 WL 2424352 (E.D. Ark. Aug. 6, 2009) (Vitamins – economic loss/unjust enrichment).  Statewide class certification denied.  No predominance due to plaintiff-specific variations, particularly reliance.
  69. Solo v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 2009 WL 4287706 (D.S.C. Sept. 25, 2009) (contact lens solution – economic loss/consumer fraud/unjust enrichment).  Statewide class certification denied.  Improper class definition due to plaintiff-specific variations.
  70. In re Panacryl Sutures Products Liability Cases, 263 F.R.D. 312 (E.D.N.C. Nov. 13, 2009) (Panacryl absorbable sutures – personal injury).  Nationwide class certification denied.  No typicality and adequacy due to multiple state laws.  No predominance and superiority due to multiple state laws and plaintiff-specific variations.  No issue certification.  Reconsideration was denied at 2010 WL 3081389 (E.D.N.C. Aug. 1, 2010), again rejecting issue certification for multiple state-specific subclasses.
  71. In re Digitek Products Liability Litigation, 2010 WL 2102330 (S.D.W. Va. May 25, 2010) (Digitek – economic loss/consumer fraud).  Nationwide and statewide class certification denied.  No typicality and adequacy due to plaintiff-specific variations and multiple state laws.  No predominance due to plaintiff-specific variations.  No superiority.
  72. Sergeants Benevolent Assn. Health & Welfare Fund v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLP, 2011 WL 824607, slip op. (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 16, 2011) (Ketek – economic loss/consumer fraud/RICO/unjust enrichment).  Nationwide class certification denied.  No predominance due to plaintiff-specific variations, particularly causation and learned intermediary.
  73. In Re Yasmin & Yaz (Drospirenone) Marketing, Sales Practices & Relevant Products Liability Litigation, ___ F.R.D. ___, 2011 WL 1692163, slip op. (S.D. Ill. May 4, 2011) (Yasmin/Yaz – personal injury).  Nationwide class action allegation struck.  No predominance due to plaintiff-specific variations and multiple state laws.  No issue certification.
  74. Rader v. Teva Parenteral Medicines, Inc.276 F.R.D. 524 (D. Nev. Oct. 5, 2011) (propofol - medical monitoring).  Class action of all persons allegedly exposed to pathogens at particular clinic denied.  No proper class definition due to plaintiff-specific variations.  No adequacy due to class representative's bankruptcy and claim splitting.  No predominance due to multiple products and plaintiff-specific variations.
  75. In re Yasmin & Yaz Marketing, Sales Practices & Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2100, 2012 WL 865041 (S.D. Ill. March 13, 2012) (Yasmin/Yaz – economic loss/consumer fraud).  No adequacy due to class representative's close ties to plaintiff's counsel.  No properly defined class.  No typicality or predominance to plaintiff-specific variations, particularly reliance, causation, and learned intermediary.
  76. Haggart v. Endogastric Solutions, Inc., 2012 U.S. Dist. Lexis 89767 (W.D. Pa. June 28, 2012) (EsophyX – personal injury).  Nationwide class certification denied.  No typicality due to most procedures being successful.  No injunctive class due to monetary nature of relief and injunctive relief not benefiting class members.  No predominance or superiority due to plaintiff-specific variations.  Alternative class failed due to lack of proper class definition and lack of numerosity.
  77. In re Celexa & Lexapro Marketing & Sales Practices Litigation, 291 F.R.D. 13 (D. Mass. Feb. 5, 2013) (Celexa – economic loss/consumer fraud).  Nationwide and statewide (California) class certification denied.  No superiority for nationwide classes due to multiple state laws.  No predominance in California statewide action due to plaintiff-specific variations.
  78. In re Avandia Marketing, Sales Practices & Products Liability Litigation, 2014 WL 6684343 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 24, 2014) (Avandia– economic loss).  Nationwide class of Medicare Advantage Organizations suing under the Medicare Secondary Payer Act certification denied.  No commonality or predominance due to plaintiff-specific variations.  No superiority because insurers prefer to deal with subrogation issues on their own.  No typicality because the class representative has unusually large claims that allowed it to negotiate an unusually favorable deal for itself.

No comments: