Harris v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company et al
| Arvil Blake Harris |
| Bristol-Myers Squibb Company and Pfizer Inc |
| 1:2017cv08253 |
| October 26, 2017 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| Denise L. Cote |
| Personal Injury: Health Care |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 |
| Both |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
7
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER.....The claims in the above-captioned actions must be dismissed as preempted. The plaintiffs cannot escape Utts IIs preemption analysis by masking the basis for their claims. Fortner, 2017 WL 3193928, at *3. Even witho ut reference to the documents on which the amended complaint in Utts relied, the complaints simply do[] not provide sufficient factual content to support a plausible inference that there exists newly acquired information such that the defendants coul d unilaterally have changed the Eliquis label to include additional warnings. Id. Nor do plaintiffs provide any analysis with respect to the independent ground for dismissal of their actions: the adequacy of the labels under the relevant state law. Previous opinions already addressed four of the states laws implicated by the complaints at issue here, and the plaintiffs do not explain why those opinions were in error or how any of the other states laws would alter the outcome of an adequacy an alysis. Although the plaintiffs assert that the applicable law in each case differs from California law, the plaintiffs also assert in a chart attached in their memorandum that California law applies to one case. See 17md2754 (DLC), Dkt. No. 152-1, Appx. of Cases (17cv6582 (DLC)). Indeed, the plaintiffs do not even cite the statutes or case law that pertain to the adequacy of a labels warnings for any jurisdiction. In the absence of citation to any authority, it is unnecessary to address the ir argument further. Therefore, with the exception of the five cases filed by plaintiffs who are Louisiana residents, each of these actions is also dismissed on the ground that the Eliquis labels warnings regarding the risks at issue here were adequ ate as a matter of law. Finally, the plaintiffs do not explain a basis for a remand to the District of Delaware. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the motions to remand in the above-captioned cases are denied. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the above-captioned cases are dismissed with prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall close the above-captioned cases. (Signed by Judge Denise L. Cote on 11/29/2017) (gr)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the New York Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
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.
