Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-4_06-cv-01668/USCOURTS-ared-4_06-cv-01668-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Product Liability

---

1

Holloway v. Lockhart, 813 F.2d 874 (8th Cir. 1987); Fed R. Civ. P. 56. 

2

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250 (1986).

3

Inland Oil & Transport Co. v. United States, 600 F.2d 725, 727 (8th Cir. 1979).

4

Id. at 728.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

WESTERN DIVISION

In re: 

PREMPRO PRODUCTS LIABILITY 

LITIGATION

KATHY FRAME, et al.

v.

WYETH, et al.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

MDL Docket No. 4:03CV1507-WRW

 4:06CV01668-WRW

 PLAINTIFFS

 

 

 DEFENDANTS

ORDER

Pending is Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 8). Responses and replies have

been filed and oral argument was heard at the status conference held today.

I. SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD

Summary judgment is appropriate only when there is no genuine issue of material fact, so that the

dispute may be decided on purely legal grounds.1

 The Supreme Court has established guidelines to assist

trial courts in determining whether this standard has been met:

The inquiry performed is the threshold inquiry of determining whether there is the need for

a trial -- whether, in other words, there are any genuine factual issues that properly can be

resolved only by a finder of fact because they may reasonably be resolved in favor of either

party.2

The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has cautioned that summary judgment is an extreme

remedy that should only be granted when the movant has established a right to the judgment beyond

controversy.3

 Nevertheless, summary judgment promotes judicial economy by preventing trial when no

genuine issue of fact remains.4

 This court must view the facts in the light most favorable to the party

Case 4:06-cv-01668-BRW Document 20 Filed 08/22/08 Page 1 of 2
5

Id. at 727-28. 

6 Counts v. MK-Ferguson Co., 862 F.2d 1338, 1339 (8th Cir. 1988) (quoting City of Mt. Pleasant v.

Associated Elec. Coop., 838 F.2d 268, 273-74 (8th Cir. 1988) (citations omitted)). 

7

Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248.

8

Doc. No. 9.

2

opposing the motion.5 The Eighth Circuit has also set out the burden of the parties in connection with a

summary judgment motion:

[T]he burden on the party moving for summary judgment is only to demonstrate, i.e.,“[to

point] out to the District Court,” that the record does not disclose a genuine dispute on a

material fact. It is enough for the movant to bring up the fact that the record does not contain

such an issue and to identify that part of the record which bears out his assertion. Once this

is done, his burden is discharged, and, if the record in fact bears out the claim that no

genuine dispute exists on any material fact, it is then the respondent’s burden to set forth

affirmative evidence, specific facts, showing that there is a genuine dispute on that issue.

If the respondent fails to carry that burden, summary judgment should be granted.6

Only disputes over facts that may affect the outcome of the suit under governing law will properly

preclude the entry of summary judgment.7

 

II. DISCUSSION

Defendants assert that Plaintiff’s claims must be dismissed because there is “no reliable evidence

that Premarin increases breast cancer risk.”8

 Defendants reference many studies in support of their

position -- that the weight of the scientific evidence shows no link between breast cancer and estrogen

only therapy. Plaintiff respond by citing a few studies, which Defendants criticize. While this case

ultimately may be dismissed following Daubert motions, at this time Defendants have failed to establish

that there are no material facts in dispute.

CONCLUSION

Based on the findings of fact and conclusions of law above, Defendants’ Motion for Summary

Judgment (Doc. No. 8) is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED this 22nd day of August, 2008.

 /s/ Wm. R. Wilson, Jr.______________

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 4:06-cv-01668-BRW Document 20 Filed 08/22/08 Page 2 of 2