Fullington v. Pfizer Inc et al
ORDER directing the plaintiff to file a brief explaining specifically what the defendants could have done to comply with Arkansas law, as well as how doing so would not have violated federal law. The plaintiff's brief must be filed within 21 days from the entry of this Order. The defendants may file a response within 14 days after the plaintiff files her brief. Please be concise and to the point. Signed by Judge J. Leon Holmes on 01/15/2014. (rhm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
No. 4:10CV00236 JLH
PLIVA, INC., formerly known as
Pliva USA, Inc.; and MUTUAL
PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY, INC.
After reviewing the plaintiff’s second amended complaint, the Court has concluded that one
more (hopefully final) round of briefing on the preemption issues is in order. The Court directs the
plaintiff to file a brief explaining her views as to why her claims for negligence (design defect), strict
liability (design defect), breach of warranty - merchantability, and breach of warranty - fitness for a
particular purpose are not preempted in light of Mutual Pharmaceutical Company, Inc. v. Bartlett,
133 S. Ct. 2466 (2013). The plaintiff must explain specifically what the defendants could have and
should have done to comply with Arkansas law, as well as how doing so would not have violated
The plaintiff’s brief must be filed within twenty-one days from the entry of this Order. The
defendants may file a response within fourteen days after the plaintiff files her brief.
Please be concise and to the point.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 15th day of January, 2014.
J. LEON HOLMES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?