Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-00200/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-00200-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Product Liability

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO NOT FOR PUBLICATION 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Judith Tagata, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

Schwarz Pharma Incorporated, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-15-00200-PHX-JJT

ORDER 

 At issue is Defendant Wyeth Pharmaceuticals Inc.’s Motion for Summary 

Judgment (Doc. 84, Mot.), filed on December 15, 2015. The Court granted Plaintiffs 

Judith and Peter Tagata, who are represented by counsel, an extension of time for the 

filing of a Response, to February 2, 2016. (Docs. 92, 93.) That date passed, and Plaintiffs 

failed to timely respond to the Motion for Summary Judgment. As a result, Defendant 

Wyeth Pharmaceuticals Inc. (“Wyeth”) is entitled to summary disposition of its Motion 

for Summary Judgment. See LRCiv 7.2(i). 

 When the Court initially completed this Order granting summary disposition in 

favor of Wyeth and was in the process of entering it on the docket, Plaintiffs filed a oneweek-late Response to Wyeth’s Motion (Doc. 98) but did not provide any reason for their 

failure to file a timely Response. As a result, the Court will grant Wyeth’s Motion for 

Summary Judgment and need not await any Reply from Wyeth. 

 This is a product liability case in which Plaintiffs seek damages for injuries 

Mrs. Tagata allegedly suffered after ingesting a generic version of metoclopramide, a 

Case 2:15-cv-00200-JJT Document 100 Filed 02/11/16 Page 1 of 3
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

medication that Wyeth’s subsidiaries manufactured and sold in various forms under the 

brand-name Reglan until 2001 and 2002, when Wyeth sold the rights to Reglan to 

Defendant Schwarz Pharma, Inc. In the Motion, Wyeth produces evidence to show that 

Mrs. Tagata never purchased or ingested Reglan during the period Wyeth manufactured 

it, but rather only ingested metoclopramide manufactured and sold by companies other 

than Wyeth, which companies Plaintiffs have also named as Defendants in this action. 

(See Docs. 85, 85-1, Wyeth’s Statement of Uncontroverted Facts in Supp. of Its Mot. for 

Summ. J. (“Wyeth SUF”), Exs. 1-5.) Together with the evidence, Wyeth also provides 

the Court with a copy of Requests for Admission served on Plaintiffs in October 2015, 

which included the admissions that Mrs. Tagata “never ingested or received brand 

Reglan, whether in tablet, syrup, or injection/IV formulation” and, “[a]t all times relevant 

to this case, [Mrs. Tagata] ingested or received only generic metoclopramide.” (Wyeth 

SUF, Ex. 5.) Plaintiffs never responded to the Requests for Admission (Wyeth SUF ¶ 10 

& n.2) and therefore admitted the matters contained therein under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 36(a)(3). 

 Wyeth provides a wealth of case law to support the proposition that, in Arizona as 

well as most other states, a defendant may not be held liable for injuries caused by the use 

of another party’s product under any theory of liability. (Mot. at 2, 5-10 (citing, inter alia, 

Moretti v. Wyeth, Inc., 579 F. App’x 563 (9th Cir. 2014) (applying Nevada law); In re 

Darvocet, Darvon & Propoxyphene Prods. Liab. Litig., 756 F.3d 917 (6th Cir. 2014) 

(applying 22 states’ laws); Hyde v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 751 F. Supp. 832, 

833 (D. Ariz. 1990)).) In the alternative, Wyeth also provides support for the proposition 

that, for causes of action that require a duty of care, a defendant has no duty of care to a 

plaintiff to whom the defendant has no relationship, and, without a duty, the defendant 

cannot be liable to the plaintiff under Arizona law. (Mot. at 2, 10-12 (citing, inter alia, 

Bloxham v. Glock Inc., 53 P.3d 196, 199-200 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002)).) Because the 

evidence shows that Wyeth had no relationship with Plaintiffs, Wyeth owed Plaintiffs no 

Case 2:15-cv-00200-JJT Document 100 Filed 02/11/16 Page 2 of 3
- 3 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

duty of care and cannot be liable for harm caused by another company’s product under 

negligence-based causes of action. See Bloxham, 53 P.3d at 199-200. 

 In the late-filed Response, Plaintiffs state that certain of Mrs. Tagata’s hospital 

records use the word “Reglan,” and they should be able to conduct further discovery to 

determine if Mrs. Tagata may have ingested Reglan manufactured by Wyeth. Even if the 

Court were to consider Plaintiffs’ late-filed Response, Plaintiffs do not address the facts 

that they never responded to Wyeth’s Requests for Admission—which Wyeth served on 

Plaintiffs four months ago—and, by failing to timely respond, Plaintiffs admitted the 

matters therein. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(3). The fact that Mrs. Tagata never ingested 

Wyeth’s Reglan is thus uncontroverted at this stage of the litigation, and Plaintiffs’ 

Response would have provided the Court with no basis to deny Wyeth’s Motion for 

Summary Judgment. 

 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED granting Defendant Wyeth Pharmaceuticals 

Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 84). Judgment is granted in favor of 

Defendant Wyeth Pharmaceuticals Inc. on all of Plaintiffs’ claims against it. 

 Dated this 11th day of February, 2016. 

 

 Honorable John J. Tuchi 

 United States District Judge 

Case 2:15-cv-00200-JJT Document 100 Filed 02/11/16 Page 3 of 3