Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-md-02096/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-md-02096-55/pdf.json

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

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

IN RE: Zicam Cold Remedy Marketing,

Sales Practices, and Products Liability

Litigation.

_________________________________

THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:

All actions. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 09-md-2096-PHX-FJM

ORDER

Pursuant to Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation Rule 10.1(b), we recommend that

the Panel remand to the transferor courts the remaining actions pending in In Re: Zicam Cold

Remedy Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation. 

The Panel created this MDL on October 9, 2009. Transfer Order (doc. 1). The Panel

centralized nine actions, based on its determination that they shared “factual questions

regarding, inter alia, the marketing and sale of three Zicam nasal cold remedy products and

injuries sustained by the use and/or purchase of those products, particularly whether the

products cause anosmia (the loss of sense of smell).” Id. at 2. Since then, a total of 252

actions have been consolidated, including 209 actions transferred from outside the District

of Arizona. Plaintiffs’ claims relate to three “intranasal” products: Zicam Cold Remedy

Nasal Gel, Zicam Cold Remedy Nasal Swabs, and Zicam Cold Remedy Swabs, Kids Size.

The MDL involves both personal injury actions, involving allegations that plaintiffs’ use of

the intranasal products caused smell dysfunction, and economic injury actions, in which

plaintiffs claim economic losses associated with purchase of the products. We appointed

Case 2:09-md-02096-FJM Document 1504 Filed 08/09/11 Page 1 of 5
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

- 2 -

Andrew S. Friedman of Bonnett, Fairbourn, Friedman & Balint, and Thomas Rosenfeld of

Goldenberg Heller Antognoli & Rowland, as Lead Counsel for the Economic Injury

plaintiffs, and Charles Zimmerman of Zimmerman Reed as Lead Counsel for the Personal

Injury plaintiffs. Order of March 1, 2010 (doc. 182). We appointed William J. Maledon and

David B. Rosenbaum of Osborn Maledon, Alan J. Lazarus of Drinker Biddle & Reath, and

Paul J. Giancola of Snell & Wilmer as Lead Counsel for all defendants. Id.

We approved the settlement of all economic injury class actions. Order of May 27,

2011 (doc. 1465). Pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3), Fed. R. Civ. P., for the purpose of settlement

we certified a class of persons in the United States who purchased a Zicam intranasal product

between January 1, 1999 and October 19, 2010 and claim that the products were not safe.

We dismissed plaintiffs’ claims related to the efficacy of the products without prejudice, so

that they could be resolved in Hohman v. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., No. CV 09-3693, pending

in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. We dismissed the

remainder of plaintiffs’ claims, based on the products’ safety, with prejudice. The settlement

requires that if a Zicam Cold Remedy Intra-Nasal Product is to be re-introduced, the labels

will contain language regarding adverse effects required by the U.S. Food and Drug

Administration, and that prior to reintroduction, plaintiffs’ counsel will receive the proposed

labeling. Plaintiffs’ counsel received $150,000 in fees. 

For the personal injury actions, we granted in part and denied in part defendants’

motions to exclude the opinions of four of plaintiffs’ experts (their “Daubert motion”). Order

of February 24, 2011 (doc. 1360). We admitted the opinions of Dr. Greg Davis, an Assistant

Professor of Otolaryngology, about (1) the diffuse location of olfactory tissue in the nose,

and (2) the toxicity of Zicam. Id. at 19. We admitted the opinions of Dr. Ashim Mitra, a

Professor of Pharmacy, about (1) the distribution and deposition of Zicam within the nasal

cavity, (2) the principle of diffusion, and (3) the effect of the preservative benzalkonium

chloride on the absorption of Zicam. Id. at 23. We admitted the opinions of Dr. Steven Pike,

a physician, about the toxicity of Zicam to olfactory epithelium and its potential to cause

anosmia, but excluded his reliance on certain studies. Id. at 28. We admitted the opinions

Case 2:09-md-02096-FJM Document 1504 Filed 08/09/11 Page 2 of 5
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

- 3 -

of Dr. Jay Sirois, the director of a pharmaceutical development consulting firm, about (1)

product labeling, (2) FDA regulations, (3) industry monitoring standards, and (4) the biologic

plausibility of Zicam causing anosmia. Id. at 37.

Also in relation to the personal injury actions, we denied defendants’ motion for

summary judgment on the issue of general causation. Order of June 3, 2011 (doc. 1470). We

concluded that the toxic dose showing typically required in environmental exposure actions

is not applicable to plaintiffs’ products liability claims, and so plaintiffs did not have to

demonstrate the toxic dosage of Zicam. Rather, they had to present “sufficient evidence from

which a reasonable person could conclude that it is more probable than not that Zicam caused

their anosmia.” Id. at 9. We then concluded that based on plaintiffs’ evidence of Zicam’s

toxicity, the distribution and reach of Zicam within the nasal cavity, and the location of

olfactory epithelium within the nose, there remains an issue of material fact as to whether

Zicam can cause smell dysfunction at the level of exposure which plaintiffs experienced. Id.

at 13–14. 

Nearly all the personal injury claims have been settled. Pursuant to the parties’

settlement agreement, we dismissed with prejudice the claims of 360 plaintiffs. See Order

of July 7, 2011 (doc. 1495); Order of July 26, 2011 (doc. 1500). Several other actions were

dismissed pursuant to the parties’ stipulations. See Order of Oct. 25, 2010 (doc. 1021)

(dismissing plaintiff Charlene Gardner from Gardner, et al. v. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al.,

No. CV 10-0787); Order of Nov. 18, 2010 (doc. 1143) (dismissing plaintiff Lois Hobbs from

Gardner, et al. v. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al., No. CV 10-0787); Order of Dec. 7, 2010

(doc. 1218) (dismissing certain plaintiffs from Marilyn Adams, et al. v. Matrixx Initiatives,

Inc., et al., No. CV 09-1529); Order of Dec. 10, 2010 (doc. 1238) (dismissing Sharon Davis,

et al. v. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al., No. CV 10-0164); Order of May 13, 2011 (doc. 1460)

(dismissing Callier v. Matrixx Initiatives,Inc., et al., No. 11 CV-0254). We also dismissed

several plaintiffs for failure to comply with court-ordered discovery. See Order of Feb. 24,

2011 (doc. 1363) (dismissing Vance v. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. et al., No. CV 10-1637, and

plaintiffs Glen Dunn and Russell Hill of Adams v. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al., No. CV

Case 2:09-md-02096-FJM Document 1504 Filed 08/09/11 Page 3 of 5
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

- 4 -

09-1529); Order of Aug. 5, 2011 (doc. 1502) (dismissing Adjal, et al. v. Matrixx Initiatives,

Inc., et al., No. CV 10-0729); Order of Aug. 5, 2011 (doc. 1503) (dismissing Henry v.

Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al., No.10 CV-2082, and Dedecker v. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc, et

al., No. 11 CV-0041). We also remanded to the County Court of Calhoun County, Texas

Mikolas v. Matrixx Initiatives, et al., No. CV 10-1233. Order of Sept. 1, 2010, (doc. 814).

We dismissed Stone v. Walgreen Co., No. CV 11-0948, as duplicative. Order of July 6, 2011

(doc. 1492). 

We denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment on plaintiff Doris Raub’s

claims. Order of July 6, 2011 (doc. 1491). Unlike the majority of plaintiffs in this MDL,

plaintiff Raub’s claims arose out of her use of an oral Zicam product. Because discovery and

briefing here has focused on the intranasal products, we recommend that Raub v. Zicam

LLC, et al., No. CV 11-056 be remanded to the transferor forum for all further proceedings.

Having completed consolidated pretrial proceedings and resolved all dispositive

motions, we recommend that the Panel remand the below listed actions to the transferor

forums. 

No. Case No. Case Name Transferor Forum

1 CV 09-2301 Michael D. Nelson v. Matrixx, et al. N. D. Cal.

2 CV 10-0915 Jackie Leeds v. Matrixx, et al. D. Utah

3 CV 10-1196 Britteny N. Stone v. Matrixx, et al. E. D. Va.

4 CV 10-1961 Karen D. Lundgren v. Matrixx, et al. D. Utah

5 CV 11-0325 Glenn Cathey, Jr. v. Matrixx, et al. W. D. Tex.

6 CV 11-0560 Rodney Bednarz v. Matrixx, et al. N. D. Tex.

7 CV 11-0561 Doris Raub v. Matrixx, et al. N. D. Tex.

8 CV 11-0751 Justin Sullivan v. Matrixx, et al. C. D. Cal.

9 CV 11-0837 Robin T. Reffitt v. Matrixx, et al. S. D. Ohio

10 CV 11-1129 Glen Mciver v. Matrixx, et al. W. D. Okla.

11 CV 11-1230 Dennis Pucci v. Matrixx, et al. D.N.J.

12 CV 11-1264 Christopher T. Witt v. Matrixx, et al. N. D. Ill.

13 CV 11-1287 Ronald Adams v. Matrixx, et al. S. D. Ohio

Case 2:09-md-02096-FJM Document 1504 Filed 08/09/11 Page 4 of 5
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

- 5 -

All non-case specific discovery has been completed. All dispositive motions have

been resolved. All Daubert issues have been resolved. Transferor judges need only set dates

for the completion of modest, if any, case-specific discovery, final supplementation under

Rule 26(a)(3), Fed. R. Civ. P., filing of a proposed pre-trial order, final pre-trial conference

and firm trial date. See Rule 16 Scheduling Order, dated March 10, 2010 (doc. 183). 

DATED this 9th day of August, 2011.

Case 2:09-md-02096-FJM Document 1504 Filed 08/09/11 Page 5 of 5