Gallagher v. Xanodyne Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Filing
101
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: (1) Dfts AAIPharma, LLC; AAIPharma, Inc.; AAIPharma Development Services, Inc.; and NeoSan Pharmaceuticals, Inc.'s (MDL Record 2211) MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings are GRANTED w/ respect to the cla ims asserted by the following plts: a. No. 2: 11-177-DCR; b. No. 2: 11-179-DCR; c. No. 2: 11-180-DCR; d. No. 2: 11-185-DCR; e. 2: 11-186-DCR; f. No. 2: 11-188-DCR; g. No. 2: 11-191-DCR; h. No. 2: 11-197-DCR; i. No. 2: 11-204-DCR; j. No. 2: 11-210-DC R; k. No. 2: 11-213-DCR; l. No. 2: 11-215-DCR; m. No. 2: 11-221-DCR; n. No. 2: 11-295-DCR; o. No. 2: 11-325-DCR; p. No. 2: 11-327-DCR; q. No. 2: 11-332-DCR; r. No. 2: 11-337-DCR; s. No. 2: 11-346-DCR; t. No. 2: 11-348-DCR; u. No. 2: 11-349-DCR; v. No . 2: 11-351-DCR; w. No. 2: 11-353-DCR; x. No. 2: 11-354-DCR; y. No. 2: 11-355-DCR; z. No. 2: 11-356-DCR; aa. No. 2: 11-363-DCR; bb. No. 2: 11-368-DCR; cc. No. 2: 11-369-DCR; dd. No. 2: 11-375-DCR; ee. No. 2: 11-376-DCR; ff. No. 2: 11-377-DCR; gg. No. 2: 11-381-DCR; hh. No. 2: 11-394-DCR; ii. No. 2: 11-396-DCR; jj. No. 2: 11-401-DCR; kk. No. 2: 12-032-DCR; ll. No. 2: 12-041-DCR; mm. No. 2: 12-042-DCR; nn. No. 2: 12-043-DCR; oo. No. 2: 12-047-DCR; pp. No. 2: 12-048-DCR; qq. No. 2: 12-049-DCR; rr. No. 2: 12-062-DCR; ss. No. 2: 12-064-DCR; tt. No. 2: 12-065-DCR; uu. No. 2: 12-066-DCR; vv. No. 2: 12-150-DCR. 2. Claims asserted by these plts against Dfts AAIPharma, LLC, AAIPharma, Inc.; AAIPharma Development Services, Inc.; and NeoSan Pharmaceuti cals, Inc. are DISMISSED, with prejudice. 3. With regard to Lopez v. Eli Lilly and Company, et al., No. 2: 12-046-DCR, Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (MDL Record No. 2211) is GRANTED, in part. Counts II, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, XI, XIII, XIV, and XV of the Lopez Amended Complaint are DISMISSED, with prejudice. Counts I, III, IV, XII, and XVI remain pending. 4. Dfts AAIPharma, LLC; AAIPharma, Inc.; AAIPharma Development Services, Inc.; and NeoSan Pharmaceuticals, Inc.'s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings in the action: Lopez, et al., v. Eli Lilly and Company, et al., No. 2: 12-046-DCR (MDL Record No. 2227) is DENIED. Signed by Judge Danny C. Reeves on 10/10/2012.Associated Cases: 2:11-md-02226-DCR et al.(STB)cc: COR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
NORTHERN DIVISION
(at Covington)
IN RE: DARVOCET, DARVON AND
PROPOXYPHENE PRODUCTS
LIABILITY LITIGATION
Gallagher v. Xanodyne Pharm., Inc., et al.,
Corso v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., et al.,
Babineaux v. Xanodyne Pharm., Inc., et al.,
Hunsucker v. Xanodyne Pharm., Inc., et al.,
West v. Qualitest Pharm., Inc., et al.,
Lambert v. Xanodyne Pharm., Inc., et al.,
Kellehar v. Xanodyne Pharm., Inc., et al.,
Coney v. Xanodyne Pharm., et al.,
Daugherty v. Xanodyne Pharm., Inc., et al.,
Simpson v. Qualitest Pharm., Inc., et al.,
Lynch v. Xanodyne Pharm., Inc., et al.,
Juergens v. Xanodyne Pharm., Inc., et al.,
Turner v. Watson Pharm. (NJ), Inc., et al.,
Dickerson v. Eli Lilly & Company, et al.,
Sandel v. Eli Lilly & Company, et al.,
DeVine v. Eli Lilly & Company, et al.,
Hollins v. Eli Lilly & Company, et al.,
Brookins v. Eli Lilly & Company, et al.,
Hawthorne v. Eli Lilly & Company, et al.,
Holland v. Eli Lilly & Company, et al.,
Jones v. Eli Lilly & Company, et al.,
McAlpine v. Eli Lilly & Company, et al.,
Parker v. Eli Lilly & Company, et al.,
Aaron v. Eli Lilly & Company, et al.,
Wagers v. Eli Lilly & Company, et al.,
Aga v. Eli Lilly & Company, et al.,
Anderson v. Eli Lilly & Company, et al.,
Reynolds v. Eli Lilly & Company, et al.,
S. Wilson v. Eli Lilly & Company, et al.,
Marler v. Eli Lilly & Company, et al.,
Salard v. Eli Lilly & Company, et al.,
T. Wilson v. Eli Lilly & Company, et al.,
Boyd v. Eli Lilly & Company, et al.,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
-1-
Master File No. 2: 11-md-2226-DCR
MDL Docket No. 2226
Civil Action No. 2: 11-177-DCR
Civil Action No. 2: 11-179-DCR
Civil Action No. 2: 11-180-DCR
Civil Action No. 2: 11-185-DCR
Civil Action No. 2: 11-186-DCR
Civil Action No. 2: 11-188-DCR
Civil Action No. 2: 11-191-DCR
Civil Action No. 2: 11-197-DCR
Civil Action No. 2: 11-204-DCR
Civil Action No. 2: 11-210-DCR
Civil Action No. 2: 11-213-DCR
Civil Action No. 2: 11-215-DCR
Civil Action No. 2: 11-221-DCR
Civil Action No. 2: 11-295-DCR
Civil Action No. 2: 11-325-DCR
Civil Action No. 2: 11-327-DCR
Civil Action No. 2: 11-332-DCR
Civil Action No. 2: 11-337-DCR
Civil Action No. 2: 11-346-DCR
Civil Action No. 2: 11-348-DCR
Civil Action No. 2: 11-349-DCR
Civil Action No. 2: 11-351-DCR
Civil Action No. 2: 11-353-DCR
Civil Action No. 2: 11-354-DCR
Civil Action No. 2: 11-355-DCR
Civil Action No. 2: 11-356-DCR
Civil Action No. 2: 11-363-DCR
Civil Action No. 2: 11-368-DCR
Civil Action No. 2: 11-369-DCR
Civil Action No. 2: 11-375-DCR
Civil Action No. 2: 11-376-DCR
Civil Action No. 2: 11-377-DCR
Civil Action No. 2: 11-381-DCR
Combs v. Eli Lilly & Company, et al.,
Hines v. Eli Lilly & Company, et al.,
Olivier v. Eli Lilly & Company, et al.,
Marsalis v. Eli Lilly & Company, et al.,
High v. Eli Lilly & Company, et al.,
Bell v. Eli Lilly & Company, et al.,
Ayling v. Eli Lilly & Company, et al.,
Lopez v. Eli Lilly & Company, et al.,
Wilson v. Eli Lilly & Company, et al.,
Vance v. Eli Lilly & Company, et al.,
Sinkler v. Eli Lilly & Company, et al.,
Chavez v. Eli Lilly & Company, et al.,
Fisher-Smith v. Eli Lilly & Company, et al.,
Linville v. Eli Lilly & Company, et al.,
Marston v. Eli Lilly & Company, et al.,
Jacob v. Eli Lilly & Company, et al.,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil Action No. 2: 11-394-DCR
Civil Action No. 2: 11-396-DCR
Civil Action No. 2: 11-401-DCR
Civil Action No. 2: 12-032-DCR
Civil Action No. 2: 12-041-DCR
Civil Action No. 2: 12-042-DCR
Civil Action No. 2: 12-043-DCR
Civil Action No. 2: 12-046-DCR
Civil Action No. 2: 12-047-DCR
Civil Action No. 2: 12-048-DCR
Civil Action No. 2: 12-049-DCR
Civil Action No. 2: 12-062-DCR
Civil Action No. 2: 12-064-DCR
Civil Action No. 2: 12-065-DCR
Civil Action No. 2: 12-066-DCR
Civil Action No. 2: 12-150-DCR
*** *** *** *** ***
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING MOTIONS OF
DEFENDANTS AAIPHARMA, LLC, AAIPHARMA, INC., AAIPHARMA
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, INC. AND NEOSAN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
*** *** *** *** ***
Defendants AAIPharma LLC, AAIPharma Inc., AAIPharma Development Services Inc.,
and NeoSan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (collectively, “AAI Defendants”) have filed motions for
judgment on the pleadings in 50 cases.1 [MDL Record No. 2211] The AAI Defendants contend
that the claims asserted against them by residents of Arizona, Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma,
1
The motion was previously granted in Zickefoose, et al., v. Eli Lilly and Company, et al., Civil Action
No. 2: 11-347-DCR. [MDL Record No. 2231] Additionally, the AAI Defendants have filed a second motion
for judgment on the pleadings in Lopez, et al., v. Eli Lilly and Company, Civil Action No. 2: 12-46-DCR.
[MDL Record No. 2227]
-2-
Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and West Virginia are deficient and should be
dismissed for reasons outlined in the Court’s earlier opinions. That is, the AAI Defendants seek
dismissal of the claims asserted by the plaintiffs in the above-captioned actions because they
have failed to allege the ingestion of a propoxyphene product manufactured or sold by the AAI
Defendants. Having fully considered this matter, the Court concludes that a reply from the
defendants is not needed. For the reasons explained below, the Court will grant the AAI
Defendants’ motions in all of the above-captioned cases except Lopez v. Eli Lilly and Company,
et al., Civil Action No. 2: 12-046-DCR, in which the motion will be granted in part.2
I.
As explained previously, the analysis is the same for motions brought under Rule 12(b)(6)
and Rule 12(c). [MDL Record No. 1402, p. 4 (citing Equal Emp’t Opportunity Comm’n v. J.H.
Routh Packing Co., 246 F.3d 850, 851 (6th Cir. 2001))] When evaluating a motion to dismiss
under Rule 12(b)(6), the Court must determine whether the complaint alleges “sufficient factual
matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (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
2
The plaintiffs’ complaints contain several counts against the companies identified as “Brand
Defendants,” including the following: strict liability design defect; strict liability for defect due to inadequate
warning; negligent design; negligence; negligent failure to warn; fraudulent nondisclosure; negligent
misrepresentation; fraudulent misrepresentation; statutory negligence; breach of express warranty; and breach
of implied warranty. [See, e.g., Civil Action No. 2: 12-41, Record No. 1, Counts I through XI.] The plaintiffs
identify the AAI Defendants as Brand Defendants. [See, e.g., Civil Action No. 2: 11-349, Record No. 1, pp.
12-13 ¶¶ 2-6.]
-3-
acted unlawfully.” Id. Thus, although the complaint need not contain “detailed factual
allegations” to survive a motion to dismiss, “a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the grounds of
his entitlement to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of
the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (internal quotation
marks and alteration omitted).
II.
The AAI Defendants argue that the complaints in the above-captioned actions cannot
survive the motions for judgment on the pleadings because the plaintiffs do not allege that they
ingested drugs manufactured, sold, or distributed by AAIPharma LLC, AAIPharma Inc.,
AAIPharma Development Services Inc., or NeoSan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. With regard to each
state implicated by the AAI Defendants’ motions, the Court has previously determined that it is
a general principle of products-liability law that a plaintiff must allege sufficient facts to allow
the reasonable inference that the injury-causing product was sold, manufactured, or distributed
by the defendant. [See MDL Record No. 1274, p. 5 n.2; MDL Record No. 1402, p. 5 n.5; MDL
Record No. 2150, p. 5; MDL Record No. 2184, pp. 8-13] With the exception of the plaintiff in
Lopez, the plaintiffs do not dispute that they have failed to allege the ingestion of an AAI
Defendant product. Instead, they incorporate by reference arguments already rejected by the
Court.3 [MDL Record No. 2244, p. 2; see MDL Record Nos. 908, 909, 914, 1707, 1951] Thus,
the Court will dismiss the plaintiffs’ products-liability claims against the AAI Defendants. And
3
The plaintiffs also argue that the motions should be held in abeyance for the plaintiffs from Michigan,
Ohio, Oklahoma, and South Carolina pending certification to the highest courts of those states. [MDL Record
No. 2244, p. 2] The Court has previously denied the plaintiffs’ motions to certify. As a result, this argument
is moot. [See MDL Record No. 2246]
-4-
because this Court has previously concluded that the AAI Defendants owe no duty to any
plaintiff who does not allege the ingestion of an AAI product, the related negligence and other
claims asserted in this action will also be dismissed.4 [MDL Record No. 2150, pp. 5-9]
The plaintiffs in Lopez, however, do specifically allege the ingestion of a propoxyphene
product manufactured by the AAI Defendants. The Amended Complaint in Lopez asserts that
Plaintiff Mark Lopez ingested “[t]hree prescriptions for Darvocet N-100 from Olden Pharmacy,
which lists the manufacturers as AAI Pharma, LLC, with a NDC of 66591-0641-41 from August
2005 to October 2006.” [MDL Record No. 2186, p. 2 ¶ 8(c)] These alleged ingestion dates
occurred after the AAI Defendants transferred the New Drug Application (“NDA”) for Darvocet
to Xanodyne Pharmaceuticals. [See MDL Record No. 2150, pp. 3-4 n.5; see also MDL Record
No. 2227-1, p. 4.] Because the AAI Defendants did not have the power to change the label after
May 2005, Lopez’s failure-to-warn claims against the AAI Defendants are preempted under
PLIVA, Inc. v. Mensing, 131 S. Ct. 2567 (2011). [Cf. MDL Record No. 2054, p. 6] However,
Lopez’s other product-liability claims — design defect, negligent design, and negligence — will
not be dismissed because the plaintiff has adequately identified AAIPharma, LLC as the
manufacturer of the product he ingested.
The Court has previously dismissed the claims against the AAI Defendants in cases
where the plaintiffs failed to allege the ingestion of a drug manufactured, sold, or distributed by
one or more of the AAI entities. [MDL Record No. 2150, p. 10] However, the Amended
Complaint in Lopez clearly alleges the ingestion of an AAIPharma, LLC product. The fact that
4
Because claims for wrongful death and loss of consortium are derivative of the other claims asserted
against the AAI Defendants, the Court will also dismiss those counts of the plaintiffs’ complaints.
-5-
the AAI Defendants sold the NDA for Darvocet before Lopez’s dates of ingestion is not relevant.
The transfer of the NDA for a drug product does not completely insulate the drug’s manufacturer
from liability to a consumer who later ingests a drug that was produced and sold before the
divestiture. It stands to reason that — rather than throw away its entire stock of a certain
medication simply because the original manufacturer sold the NDA to another company — a
pharmacy will dispense the old, but not-yet-expired, supply of the drug to its customers. Thus,
there will be a period of time after divestiture when the transferor-company’s drugs will still be
available on the market. The AAI Defendants have not pointed to any case, statute, or principle
of products-liability law that would shield them from liability for a propoxyphene product that
they manufactured and sold just because that product was not ingested until after the NDA
transfer. [See MDL Record No. 2227-1, p. 4]
Lopez has provided specific information supporting his claim of ingestion of a drug
manufactured and sold by AAIPharma, LLC. This is sufficient to allow the Court to reasonably
infer that the AAI Defendants’ product at least contributed to his alleged injuries. Lopez has
pleaded “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true,” to show more than a “sheer possibility” that
the AAI Defendants are liable for his injury. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. The Court will not dismiss
the Lopez plaintiffs’ negligence, design defect, or loss of consortium claims.
However, the Court will dismiss the misrepresentation claims asserted by all of the
plaintiffs.5 In Foster v. American Home Products Corp., 29 F.3d 165 (4th Cir. 1994), the Fourth
5
This includes the plaintiffs in Lopez, because the court has previously concluded that
misrepresentation, fraud, warranty, and statutory negligence claims “challenge label content.” [MDL Record
No. 1305, p. 11] The AAI Defendants cannot be held liable for a label that they were powerless to change
on the alleged ingestion dates. [See MDL Record No. 1305, pp. 11-13.]
-6-
Circuit rejected “the contention that a name brand manufacturer’s statements regarding its drug
can serve as the basis for liability for injuries caused by another manufacturer’s drug.” Id. at
170. And, with the notable exception of California, the majority of courts that have addressed
similar claims have followed the Fourth Circuit’s lead. Thus, the Court previously has found
unpersuasive the plaintiffs’ argument that a manufacturer of Darvon or Darvocet may be held
liable under a misrepresentation theory of liability to a plaintiff who ingested generic
propoxyphene. [See MDL Record Nos. 1274, 1402, 2184.]
Finally, the plaintiffs assert that records are being gathered in seven cases which should
confirm whether the AAI Defendants manufactured the products allegedly ingested.6 They argue
that it would be unjust to summarily dismiss their claims with prejudice if records subsequently
reveal that some of the plaintiffs in these cases did, in fact, ingest a product manufactured by one
or more of the AAI Defendants. Thus, they request an abeyance — or, in the alternative,
dismissal without prejudice — in these cases. Pursuant to the Agreed Order entered on May 4,
2012 [MDL Record No. 1792], the plaintiffs in each of the above-captioned cases were given
an opportunity to amend their complaints, but the plaintiffs chose not to do so. Because the time
to amend has now passed, dismissal with prejudice is proper in these actions.
III.
6
The cases in which this activity is being undertaken include: DeVine v. Eli Lilly and Company, et al.,
Civil Action No. 2: 11-327-DCR; Brookins v. Eli Lilly and Company, et al., Civil Action No. 2: 11-337-DCR;
Jones v. Eli Lilly and Company, et al., Civil Action No. 2: 11-349-DCR; Aaron v. Eli Lilly and Company,
et al., Civil Action No. 2: 11-354-DCR; Aga v. Eli Lilly and Company, et al., Civil Action No. 2: 11-356DCR; Olivier v. Eli Lilly and Company, et al., Civil Action No. 2: 11-401-DCR; and Sinkler v. Eli Lilly and
Company, et al., Civil Action No. 2: 12-049-DCR.
-7-
The plaintiffs subject to these motions — with the exception of the Lopez plaintiffs —
have failed to sufficiently allege the ingestion of a propoxyphene product manufactured or sold
by any of the AAI Defendants. [See MDL Record No. 2211-1, pp. 17-31] Accordingly, and for
the reasons outlined in the Memorandum Opinion and Order entered on August 21, 2012 [MDL
Record No. 2150], it is hereby
ORDERED as follows:
1.
Defendants AAIPharma, LLC; AAIPharma, Inc.; AAIPharma Development
Services, Inc.; and NeoSan Pharmaceuticals, Inc.’s Motions for Judgment on the Pleadings
[MDL Record No. 2211] are GRANTED with respect to the claims asserted by the following
plaintiffs in the above-captioned cases:
a.
Civil Action No. 2: 11-177-DCR, Plaintiff Linda Gallagher, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated;
b.
Civil Action No. 2: 11-179-DCR, Plaintiffs Patricia Corso and John
Corso;
c.
Civil Action No. 2: 11-180-DCR, Plaintiff Gloria Babineaux;
d.
Civil Action No. 2: 11-185-DCR, Plaintiff Elizabeth Hunsucker;
e.
Civil Action No. 2: 11-186-DCR, Plaintiff Carolyn West, individually and
as next of kin and personal representative of the Estate of Opal Mae
Hudgins;
f.
Civil Action No. 2: 11-188-DCR, Plaintiffs Billy Lambert, Gladys
Delaune, and Margaret Segraves;
g.
Civil Action No. 2: 11-191-DCR, Plaintiff Mary Ann Kellehar,
individually, as surviving spouse of Cornelius Kellehar, and on behalf of
the Estate of Cornelius Kellehar;
-8-
h.
Civil Action No. 2: 11-197-DCR, Plaintiff Walter D. Coney, individually
and as personal representative of the Estate of Alverna C. Whitter;
i.
Civil Action No. 2: 11-204-DCR, Plaintiffs James Daugherty and Doris
Daugherty;
j.
Civil Action No. 2: 11-210-DCR, Plaintiff Joseph Simpson, individually
and as Personal Representative on behalf of the Estate of Joseph Daniel
Simpson III;
k.
Civil Action No. 2: 11-213-DCR, Plaintiff David Lynch;
l.
Civil Action No. 2: 11-215-DCR, Plaintiff Marshall Juergens;
m.
Civil Action No. 2: 11-221-DCR, Plaintiffs David C. Turner and Judy
Earnestine Turner;
n.
Civil Action No. 2: 11-295-DCR, Plaintiff Diane Dickerson, individually
and on behalf of all wrongful death beneficiaries of Gary Dickerson and
on behalf of the Estate of Gary Dickerson;
o.
Civil Action No. 2: 11-325-DCR, Plaintiff Jimmie Louise Sandel;
p.
Civil Action No. 2: 11-327-DCR, Plaintiffs Geneva DeVine, James H.
DeVine, Patrick Garrett, Paul Morefield, Rose E. Morefield, Morsie
Pearson-Wright, Chris Puckett, Shirley Smith, and Glen Smith;
q.
Civil Action No. 2: 11-332-DCR, Plaintiff Alfonzia Hollins, III;
r.
Civil Action No. 2: 11-337-DCR, Plaintiffs Kenneth Brookins and Rex
Gibson;
s.
Civil Action No. 2: 11-346-DCR, Plaintiffs Forest Hawthorne and Cindy
Hawthorne;
t.
Civil Action No. 2: 11-348-DCR, Plaintiff Cathey Holland, individually
and as Administrator of the Estate of Mary Taylor;
u.
Civil Action No. 2: 11-349-DCR, Plaintiffs Debby Jones; Gail Jones;
Stephanie Jones; Robert Jones; Allison Juge; Larry Kastner; Rita Kastner;
Ray Kendrick; Kent Charles; Catherine LeBoeuf; Mark Lee, Sr.; Belinda
Lee; Ramona Lindley; Andreas Borer; Bessie Littleton; Judas Littleton;
-9-
Charles Loftin; Betty Loftin; Cora Louque; Ridgie Louque; Linda
Luquette; Bruce Luquette; Robbie Maas, Sr.; Arthur Major; Louis
Malbrough; Marlene Mancuso; Geraldine Marcotte; Wilfred Marcotte;
Louis Martinez, Jr.; Joyce Martinez; Renee Mataya; Armand Mataya, Sr.;
Courtney Matthews; Charles Daggs, Jr.; Brenda McGee; Castadera
McGee; Susan McMullen; Dorothy Mendel; Arthur Millet; Thomas
Mitchell; Donna Mitchell; Eva Moffett; Mary Morales; Russell Morales;
Rafael Moreno; Michael Mosley; Rose Orfanello; David Orgeron; Bonnie
Orgeron; Melvina Otillio; Martha Overbay; Vivian Albert Overbay;
Joanne Paige; Rhonda Parker; Julian Parker; Bernadette Patin; Lance
Broussard, Sr.; Audrey Percy; Willis Percy; Mytrice Perry; Donale Petrie;
Cynthia Petrie; Bobbie Sue Pierce; Larry Prestenbach; Louis Price, Sr.;
Mary Price; Linda Quey; Charles Quey; Stephen Quick; Octavia
Raymond; Billy Rodrigue; Marlene Rodrigue; William Romair; Kathryn
Roussell; Doris Salamone; Vincent Salamone; Dianne Salvant; Mary
Sapia; Michael Sapia; Janette Savoie; Jill Sawyer; Robert Schexnaydre;
Jr., April Schexnaydre; Carolyn Serpas; Jack Norman Serpas; Randolph
Simmons; Barbara Stelly; Joseph Stelly; Lisa Stevens; Kim Stewart;
Calvin Stewart, Jr.; Sheila Stewart; James Swanner; Rosemary Swanner;
John Swible, Jr.; Charlotte Swible; Patricia Talbert; Lois Tate; Alice
Taylor; Dennis Tisdale; Daisy Valle; Marshall Vaughn; Marin Vaughn;
George Vercher; Valerie Vercher; Michell Vogel; Veronica Washington;
Lynne Wilhelm; William D. Mitchell; Edith Williams, on behalf of the
Estate of Paul Williams, Sr.; Samantha Williams; Terry Williamson;
Christina Woodridge; Norman Woodridge; Mary Woodward; Robert
Woodward; Fred Young; Judy Young; Carol Zamjahn; Kevin Zamjahn;
Bruce Zeringue; Peggy Zeringue; and Linda Tisdale;
v.
Civil Action No. 2: 11-351-DCR, Plaintiff Allise McAlpine;
w.
Civil Action No. 2: 11-353-DCR, Plaintiff Carnus Parker, Jr.;
x.
Civil Action No. 2: 11-354-DCR, Plaintiffs Jim W. Aaron, Jr.; Jimmie D.
Adams, individually and as spouse of Teena Adams; Teena Adams,
individually and as spouse of Jimmie D. Adams; Martin Aday,
individually; Alice Aday, spouse; Aundra Alfred; Lola Ainsworth; Russell
Alexander; Scott Almon; Hester I. Anderson; Dorothy Atkinson; Bennie
Austin; John Bector, Jr.; Joy Marie Bell; William Bennett; Elester
Bingham, individually and on behalf of Marcus Bingham, Sr., deceased;
Clara Blanton; Kordia Bowman; Rebecca Brinson; Aaron Brown; Nettie
Brown; Freda Capers; Barbara Carter; Rebecca Churchman; Jeanette
Clarke; Earnestine Clifton; Loretta Criss; Donald Crowell, individually
-10-
and on behalf of Maxine Crowell, deceased; Connie Culbreath,
individually; Gus E. Culbreath III, spouse; George Curvin, individually
and as spouse of Rita Curvin; Rita Curvin, individually and as spouse of
George Curvin; Johnny Davis; Jewel K. Dear; Tim Dickerson; Angela
Dorsey; William E. Dykes, Jr.; James J. Ellis; Jan Ellis; Dennis Evans;
Patricia Faircloth; Mary K. Fisher; Cindy Fowler; Rosie Franks; Rita
Fuller; Sarah Galloway; Pamela George; Leah Glass; Deloris Gray;
Virginia Greer; Martha Golman, on behalf of Judy Guillot, deceased;
Stacy Harris; Von Higgins; Joe Holland; Teresa Howard, individually;
Gilbert Howard, spouse; Jack Hutchison; Aaron Ingram, individually;
Angie Ingram, spouse; James Jenkins; Matthew Johnson; Virgie Joiner;
Clifford Jones; William Kitchens; Frances Lane; Patsy L. Lebrun; Chrisa
Leonard; Adeline Loyd, individually and as spouse of Ellis Loyd; Ellis
Loyd, individually and as spouse of Adeline Loyd; Mary E. Loyd; Olga
McClanahan, individually and as spouse of Roger McClanahan; Roger
McClanahan, individually and as spouse of Olga McClanahan; Sherry
Mobley; Edith Morehead, individually; Steve Morehead, spouse; Maxine
Moten; Cynthia Myles; Eddie Odom; Angela Parson; Charlotte Patterson,
spouse; Phillip Patterson, individually; Christine Perkins; Narvin Petty,
Jr.; Wanda Picket; Ann Piquiet; Anthony Pitts; Linda Powell; Jacqueline
Price; Donna Robert, individually; Eldred B. Robert, Sr., spouse; Young
A. Roberts, Jr.; Andrea H. Self, individually and as spouse of Dennis Self;
Dennis Self, individually and as spouse of Andrea H. Self; William
Shows; Linda Sloan; Gertha Smith; Wayne Smith; Nancy Jean Spires,
individually; John Spires, Sr., spouse; Wayne Stringfellow; Linda
Tannerhill, individually; William R. Tannerhill, spouse; Stephanie TaylorFoy; Bertell Thomas; Dianne Thomas; Roberta Tiner; Lenora Upshaw;
Coy G. Waldrop; Inez Walker; Larry Walker; Evelyn Warlick; John
Wheeler; Fearron White; Catherine Williams; Lonnika S. Williams;
Walter Williams; Dorothy Mae Windham; Jan Duke; Raymond Duke;
Shirley Sasani; Christopher R. Smith; Sharon S. Smith; and Patricia
Spillers;
y.
Civil Action No. 2: 11-355-DCR, Plaintiff Calvin Wagers, Administrator
of the Estate of Kimberly Wagers;
z.
Civil Action No. 2: 11-356-DCR; Plaintiffs Nicolae Aga; Needa
Alexander; Sue Aubert; Vincent Aubert; Tyra Barabino; Margaret Barnes;
Linda Barrios; Ronald Barrios; Michael Becnel; Ellen Bickham; John
Bickham; Jerry Boudreaux, on behalf of the Estate of Ester Boudreaux;
Connie Boudreaux, on behalf of the Estate of Helen Boudreaux; Denise
Boudreaux; Jeremiah Brumfield; Faye Brumfield; Phillip Burnson;
-11-
Marilyn Burnson; Gladys Butler; Shirley Cain; Clara Calamia; Lorenzo
Carreras; Elaine Carter; Shirley Case; Charles Case; Debra Chaisson; Kent
Chapman; Yolanda Charles; Carolyn Christophe; Vincent Cinquigranno;
Valerie Coats; Joseph Cochran; Norma S. Cochran; Gail Coleman; Wayne
Collins; Laurabelle Combre; Kelly Craddock-Boone; Kent Chapman,
individually and on behalf of the Estate of Wayne Couvillion; Katherine
Craig; Tara Cryer; Marie Cutrer; Sam Cutrer; Margaret Daniels; Tena
Danos; James Danos; Sheila Dawson; Brandon DePascal; Hilda DePascal;
Carol Depew; Alice Derry; Kenneth Spikes; Jody Buckley, on behalf of
Minor; Freddie Dixson; Marlene Dixson; Melissa Doyle; Debra Duhe;
Michael Duhe; Peggy Duhe; Lambert Duncan, Sr.; Debra Duncan; Linda
Dupre; Cynthia Dyson; Mary Edwards; Joycelyn Ernest; Anthony
Faucetta, Sr.; Emma Fitch; Jasper Frabbiele; Joan Frabbiele; Delores
Freeman; Kevin Galloway; Patricia Grayer; Gerry Grayer; Jacqueline
Griffith; Jimmie Hannah; Anna Hardy; Rodney Harper; Michelle Harris;
Joseph Harris, Jr.; Theresa Harvey; Alex Henry; Ethel Henry; William
Hernandez, Jr.; Genell Hernandez; Joseph Holden; James Holloway; Lillie
Mae Holloway; Melissa Homer; Wendell Homer, individually and on
behalf of the Estate of Julia Homer; Anthony Hoofkin; Jane Hoover; Jesse
Hoover III; Amy Houston; Holsy Hubbard III; Kathleen Hubbard; Susan
Hudson; Daniel Hudson; Cloedale Hymel; Joseph Hymel, Jr.; Pearl
Jackson; Cathy James-Collins; Kevin Collins; Eugene Johnson; Irene
Johnson; Leonard Johnson, Jr.; Peggy Johnson; and Tracy Johnson, on
behalf of the Estate of Nora Johnson;
aa.
Civil Action No. 2: 11-363-DCR, Plaintiffs William Anderson and Mary
Ann Anderson;
bb.
Civil Action No. 2: 11-368-DCR, Plaintiff Kacie Reynolds;
cc.
Civil Action No. 2: 11-369-DCR, Plaintiffs Sylvia Wilson and John
Wilson;
dd.
Civil Action No. 2: 11-375-DCR, Plaintiff James Marler;
ee.
Civil Action No. 2: 11-376-DCR, Plaintiff Mary Salard;
ff.
Civil Action No. 2: 11-377-DCR, Plaintiff Tracey Wilson;
gg.
Civil Action No. 2: 11-381-DCR, Plaintiffs George Boyd; Curmer
Foremand; Truman Galloway; Rebecca Nevels; Michael Webb; Janet
Woods; and Gennie Warren, on behalf of Girlie Warren;
-12-
hh.
ii.
Civil Action No. 2: 11-396-DCR, Plaintiff Gladys Hines;
jj.
Civil Action No. 2: 11-401-DCR, Plaintiffs Archange A.J. Olivier, Jr. and
Christine Olivier;
kk.
Civil Action No. 2: 12-032-DCR, Plaintiff Keith Marsalis;
ll.
Civil Action No. 2: 12-041-DCR, Plaintiff Lois High, individually and on
behalf of the Estate of Minnie Fowler;
mm.
Civil Action No. 2: 12-042-DCR, Plaintiff Dennis Bell;
nn.
Civil Action No. 2: 12-043-DCR, Plaintiff Steven Ayling, Sr., and his
wife, Denise Ayling;
oo.
Civil Action No. 2: 12-047-DCR, Plaintiff Constance Wilson, individually
and as Administratrix of the Estate of Thomas Wilson;
pp.
Civil Action No. 2: 12-048-DCR, Plaintiff Barbara Vance;
qq.
Civil Action No. 2: 12-049-DCR, Plaintiff Rose Marie Sinkler;
rr.
Civil Action No. 2: 12-062-DCR, Plaintiff Randy Chavez;
ss.
Civil Action No. 2: 12-064-DCR, Plaintiff Louann Fisher-Smith;
tt.
Civil Action No. 2: 12-065-DCR, Plaintiff Paulette Linville;
uu.
Civil Action No. 2: 12-066-DCR, Plaintiff Nora L. Marston; and
vv.
2.
Civil Action No. 2: 11-394-DCR, Plaintiffs Paul Ray Combs and Joe
Smith;
Civil Action No. 2: 12-150-DCR, Plaintiff Donald Jacob.
The claims asserted by these plaintiffs against Defendants AAIPharma, LLC,
AAIPharma, Inc.; AAIPharma Development Services, Inc.; and NeoSan Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
are DISMISSED, with prejudice.
-13-
3.
With regard to Lopez v. Eli Lilly and Company, et al., Civil Action No. 2: 12-046-
DCR, the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [MDL Record No. 2211] is GRANTED, in
part. Counts II, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, XI, XIII, XIV, and XV of the Lopez Amended
Complaint are DISMISSED, with prejudice. Counts I, III, IV, XII, and XVI remain pending.
4.
Defendants AAIPharma, LLC; AAIPharma, Inc.; AAIPharma Development
Services, Inc.; and NeoSan Pharmaceuticals, Inc.’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings in the
action styled: Lopez, et al., v. Eli Lilly and Company, et al., Civil Action No. 2: 12-046-DCR
[MDL Record No. 2227] is DENIED.
This 10th day of October, 2012.
-14-
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?