Thompson et al v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc.
Filing
39
ORDER & REASONS denying 36 Motion to Certify Judgment for Immediate Appeal. Signed by Judge Helen G. Berrigan on 10/31/11. (plh, ) Modified doc type on 10/31/2011 (plh, ).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
TIMOTHY M. THOMPSON, JR. & JESSICA
PEARSON THOMPSON
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO: 11-541
ABBOTT LABORATORIES, INC.
SECTION: “C” (2)
ORDER & REASONS
Before the Court is the Motion to Certify Judgment for Immediate Appeal filed by Plaintiffs.
(Rec. Doc. 36). Having reviewed the record, memoranda of counsel, and the applicable law,
Plaintiffs’ Motion is DENIED for the following reasons.
Jessica Pearson Thompson (“Mrs. Thompson”) and Timothy Thompson, Jr. (collectively,
“Plaintiffs) filed this suit against Abbott Laboratories, Inc. (“Defendant”) in March 2011, alleging
that Mrs. Thompson’s use of a depression medication named Depakote, manufactured by Defendant,
caused birth defects to their son Timothy Gabriel Thompson (“Timothy”) and caused their second
baby to be stillborn. (Rec. Doc. 6). Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), which
the Court granted as to Plaintiffs’ claims of loss of consortium, medical expenses, and wrongful
death, on grounds that those claims were prescribed and did not fall under any exceptions within
which the doctrine of contra non valentum applies. (Rec. Doc. 24 at 6; Rec. Doc. 28). Plaintiffs
now ask this Court to certify its July 19, 2011 Order for immediate appeal under 28 U.S.C. §
1292(b). (Rec. Doc. 36).
In Rico v. Flores, 481 F.3d 234, 238 (5th Cir. 2007), the Fifth Circuit stated that “Title 28
§ 1292(b) of the United States Code permits a court to certify an interlocutory appeal where (1) a
controlling question of law is involved, (2) there is substantial ground for difference of opinion
about the question of law, and (3) immediate appeal will materially advance the ultimate
termination of the litigation.” In U.S. v. Garner, the Fifth Circuit held that “[t]he purpose of §
1292(b) is to provide for an interlocutory appeal in those exceptional cases” where the three part test
is satisfied. U.S. v. Garner, 749 F.2d 281, 286 (5th Cir. 1985). A 1292(b) interlocutory appeal is
not justified where “none of the questions [of law] is particularly difficult and most appear to be
merely fact-review questions.” Clark-Dietz and Associates-Engineers, Inc. v. Basic Const. Co., 702
F.2d 67, 69 (5th Cir. 1983). The party seeking the interlocutory appeal bears the burden of
establishing that appeal is appropriate. Complaint of L.L.P.&D., 1998 WL 66100, at *1 (E.D. La.
1998).
Plaintiffs have not shown that this Court’s July 19, 2011 Order dismissing their loss of
consortium, medical expense, and wrongful death claims involves a controlling question of law.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). Plaintiffs argue that this Court decided that “the placement of a ‘black box
warning’ is tantamount to constructive knowledge to the Plaintiffs no matter the circumstances of
their actual knowledge” as a matter of law. (Rec. Doc. 36-1 at 2). However, they mischaracterize
the Court’s reasoning and holding.
As this Court stated in its July 19, 2011 Order, contra non valentum means ‘prescription does
not run against a party unable to act. Hillman v. Akins, 631 So. 2d 1 (La. 1994). This doctrine
applies when a case falls within one of the following four categories:
(1) Where there is some legal cause which prevented the courts or their officers from
taking cognizance of or acting on the plaintiff’s action;
(2) Where there was some condition coupled with a contract or connected with the
proceedings which prevented the creditor from suing or acting;
(3) Where the debtor himself has done some act effectually to prevent the creditor
from availing himself of his cause of action; and
(4) Where some cause of action is not known or reasonably knowable by the
plaintiff, even though his ignorance is not induced by the defendant.
2
Marin v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 48 So. 3d 234, 245 (La. 2010). The Court found the first two factors
inapplicable. (Rec. Doc. 24 at 4). The Court found that Plaintiffs’ case did not fall under the third
category for not one, but two reasons. First, the Defendant placed a “black box warning” on
Depakote, which indicated the risk to fetuses of use by women of childbearing potential. Second,
the Court stated: “[a]dditionally, no evidence exists showing that the alleged tortious acts of
Defendant overcame the will of Plaintiffs, preventing them from filing suit within the prescriptive
period.” (Rec. Doc. 24 at 5). It was the combination of these two findings that led to the Court’s
conclusion that Defendant did not act to prevent Plaintiffs from discovering their cause of action.
The Court’s conclusion as to one piece of evidence can hardly be characterized as a determination
as a matter of law.
As to category four, this Court also found on more than one basis that Plaintiffs’ case did not
qualify. It held that they failed to establish that they used reasonable diligence upon Timothy’s birth
in 2000 to determine whether there was a link between Mrs. Thompson’s use of Depakote and
Timothy’s birth defects not just because Depakote had a “black box warning’ on it, but also because
scientific articles about the risk existed since the mid-1990s. (Rec. Doc. 24 at 6). The two reasons
behind the Court’s finding demonstrate that the Court did not decide the issue “as a matter of law,”
without regard to Plaintiffs’ actual knowledge. Rather, it did so by applying facts to the law
requiring diligence in discovering a cause of action.
Further, Plaintiffs fail to demonstrate that substantial ground for difference of opinion exists
in this matter. Such a circumstance occurs where “the circuits are in dispute on the issue and the
Court of Appeals of the circuit [encompassing the district court] has not spoken on the point [...]
or if novel and difficult questions of first impression are presented.” In re Chinese Manufactured
Drywall Prods. Liab. Litig., 2011 WL 2443693, at *3 (E.D. La. 2011) (quoting Ryan v. Flowserve
3
Corp., 444 F. Supp. 2d 718, 723-724 (N.D. Tex. 2006)). Yet the “mere fact that a party disagrees
with the district court’s ruling” or that “settled law might be applied differently” is insufficient to
establish that there is substantial ground for difference of opinion. In re Chinese-Manufactured
Drywall, 2011 WL at *3. (citations omitted). Plaintiffs have not pointed to a circuit split or other
circumstances showing that substantial ground for difference of opinion exists on this matter. The
Court notes that Plaintiffs’ young age at the time the drug was ingested was not alleged in their
Complaint or Amended Complaint and thus could not have been considered in the July 19, 2011
Order. (Rec. Doc. 36-1 at 2 and Rec. Docs. 1, 6).
Finally, Plaintiffs do not demonstrate that appeal will materially advance the litigation in this
case. They argue that discovery on Timothy’s “medical needs should only have to be done once for
the parents’ claims and the child’s,” but do not address how more efficient discovery would advance
the litigation. (Rec. Doc. 36-1 at 3).
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Certify Judgment for Immediate Appeal is
DENIED. (Rec. Doc. 36).
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 31st day of October, 2011.
HELEN G. BERRIGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4
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?