Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_21-cv-00145/USCOURTS-azd-2_21-cv-00145-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 367
Nature of Suit: TORTS - Personal Injury - Health Care/Pharmaceutical 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Alec Garner, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v. 

Medicis Pharmaceutical Corporation, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-21-00145-PHX-GMS

ORDER 

Pending before the Court is Medicis Pharmaceutical Corporation and Bausch Health 

US, LLC’s (“Defendants”) Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 55). For the following 

reasons, the motion is denied.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs bring their case under the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act (“ACFA”), A.R.S.

§ 44-1522. The four individual plaintiffs in this case each allege to have suffered adverse 

conditions resulting from their prescribed use of Solodyn. (Doc. 14 at 8–14). Solodyn is 

an acne-treatment drug. (Doc. 14 at 3). Plaintiffs’ case focuses on certain language in 

Defendants’ promotional materials: “The safety of using Solodyn beyond 12 weeks has not 

been studied and is not known.” (“12-Week Language”) (Doc. 13 at 4–5). The 

promotional language differed from the language the Food and Drug Administration 

approved and required in 2006: “Safety of Solodyn has not been established beyond 12 

weeks of use.” (Doc. 14 at 3). 

Case 2:21-cv-00145-GMS Document 82 Filed 09/27/23 Page 1 of 6
- 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

Plaintiffs allege that by February 2008, Medicis, and later Bausch, studied the safety 

of using Solodyn beyond 12 weeks and discovered elevated liver function tests in one 

percent of patients after 25 weeks and drug-induced lupus in over half a percent of patients.

(Doc. 14 at 4–5). Yet, according to Plaintiffs, Defendants continued using the 12-Week 

Language. Plaintiffs identify Defendants’ use of the 12-Week Language on carriers 

physically attached to MediSAVE cards—promotional cards providing holders a discount 

on prescription drugs. (Doc. 67-3 at 3). At oral argument, Plaintiffs admitted that proper 

language was included in other publications released by Defendants. Each Plaintiff took 

prescribed Solodyn and each was eventually diagnosed with drug-induced hepatitis, lupus, 

or elevated liver enzymes. (Doc. 14 at 9, 11–13).

On December 28, 2020, Plaintiffs filed suit against Defendants in Maricopa County 

Superior Court for violation of the ACFA. (Doc. 1–3, Ex. A). Defendants removed the 

case to this Court on January 27, 2021. (Doc. 1). On October 14, 2022, Defendants filed 

a Motion for Summary Judgment asserting Plaintiffs have failed to show reliance on the 

12-week language. (Doc. 55 at 2–3). Defendants further allege Plaintiffs’ claims are time 

barred under the ACFA’s one-year statute of limitations.

DISCUSSION

I. Legal Standard

Summary judgment is proper when the movant “shows that there is no genuine 

dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The Court views the evidence “in a light most favorable to a nonmoving party.” Warren v. City of Carlsbad, 58 F.3d 439, 441 (9th Cir. 1995). Substantive 

law determines which facts are material, and “[o]nly disputes over facts that might affect 

the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of 

summary judgment.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). “A fact 

issue is genuine ‘if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the 

[non-moving] party.’” Villiarimo v. Aloha Island Air, Inc., 281 F.3d 1054, 1061 (9th Cir. 

2002) (quoting Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248). Thus, the non-moving party must show that 

Case 2:21-cv-00145-GMS Document 82 Filed 09/27/23 Page 2 of 6
- 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

the genuine factual issues “can be resolved only by a finder of fact because they may 

reasonably be resolved in favor of either party.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 250.

II. Analysis

In their Motion for Summary Judgment, Defendants assert Plaintiffs cannot show 

any reliance on the alleged 12-Week Language misrepresentation. Additionally, they 

assert that Defendants’ claims are time barred. 

A. Reliance

The ACFA requires Plaintiffs to show “(1) a false promise or misrepresentation 

made in connection with the sale or advertisement of ‘merchandise,’ and (2) consequent 

and proximate injury resulting from the misrepresentation.” Watts v. Medicis Pharm. 

Corp., 239 Ariz. 19, 28, 365 P.3d 944, 953 (Ariz. 2016) (citing Kuehn v. Stanley, 208 Ariz.

124, 129, ¶ 16, 91 P.3d 346, 351, ¶ 16 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004)). A material omission can 

support an ACFA claim. A.R.S. § 44–1522(A). Plaintiffs must show reliance to succeed 

on an ACFA claim. Kuehn, 208 Ariz. at 129, ¶ 16, 91 P.3d at 351, ¶ 16. While reliance 

on a material omission is necessary, it need not be reasonable. See Schellenbach v. 

GoDaddy.com., 321 F.R.D. 613, 624 (D. Ariz. 2017). Reliance, however, must be possible. 

See Kuehn, 208 Ariz. at 130, ¶ 20, 91 P.3d at 352, ¶ 20 (holding reliance was not possible 

because the alleged false report was received only after the Plaintiffs entered the contract). 

In other words, to fulfill the reliance element under the ACFA at summary judgement, a 

plaintiff must be able to present facts showing reliance was actually possible at the time of 

the fraudulent misrepresentation.

Defendants have not shown an absence of a genuine dispute of material fact on the 

issue of reliance. Determining the facts on this issue requires weighing the credibility of 

Plaintiffs’ and witness testimony. The Court does not weigh evidence or credibility during 

summary judgment, leaving this issue for the jury. Anderson, 477 U. S. at 255. Each

Plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts to survive Defendants’ Summary Judgment. This is 

because determining the accuracy and credibility of Plaintiffs’ sworn testimony is a matter 

for a jury to weigh.

Case 2:21-cv-00145-GMS Document 82 Filed 09/27/23 Page 3 of 6
- 4 -

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

1. Alec Garner

Under oath, Plaintiff Alec Garner testified that he remembered receiving the 

MediSAVE card and whatever information was included with it. (Doc. 67-4 at 2). 

Furthermore, Mr. Garner testified that he believed the MediSAVE card came with a “onesheeter.” (Doc. 67-4 at 3–6). Further, Mr. Garner’s mother testified that she would have 

reviewed and relied on any information provided to her. (Doc. 67-5 at 6). The question of 

whether this testimony is sufficient to show receipt and reliance on the 12-Week Language 

is a question of fact for a jury to determine.

2. Erica Lupori

Under oath, Plaintiff Erica Lupori testified that she received a brochure along with 

her MediSAVE card. (Doc. 67-6 at 2). She does not recall the exact look of the brochure, 

but remembers it being “attractive.” (Doc. 67-6 at 2). She remembers reading the brochure 

and learning about increased risk of headaches and sunburns. (Doc. 67-6 at 4-5). These 

are both warnings included with the carrier that MediSAVE cards are attached to. (Doc. 

67-3 at 3). Further, Ms. Lupori testified that she recalled receiving the card and had read 

a pamphlet included with the card. (Doc. 67-6 at 6). Finally, Ms. Lupori testified that 

relied on all the information in the brochure and/or pamphlet. (Doc. 67-6 at 8). Like Mr. 

Garner’s claim, whether Ms. Lupori’s testimony is sufficient to prove her claim is a 

question of fact for a jury to determine.

3. Hannah Hayes

Under oath, Plaintiff Hannah Hayes testified that she remembered receiving both 

the MediSAVE card and additional materials along with the card. (Doc. 67-7 at 2–3). Ms. 

Hayes further testified that she would have considered and reviewed all the information 

provided to her at the time. (Doc. 67-7 at 7). Additionally, Ms. Hayes’s mother testified 

that the family may have received a pamphlet along with the MediSAVE card. (Doc. 67-7 

at 3–5). Like the above claims, the sufficiency of Ms. Hayes’s testimony is a question of 

fact for a jury to determine.

Case 2:21-cv-00145-GMS Document 82 Filed 09/27/23 Page 4 of 6
- 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. Trey Wilkes

Under oath, Plaintiff Trey Wilkes specifically recalls receiving a MediSAVE card 

along with a pamphlet to which the card was fixed. (Doc. 67-9 at 2–3). Further, Mr.

Wilkes testifies that he and his mother may have used the information on the pamphlet to 

make the decision whether to take Solodyn. (Doc. 67-9 at 4–7, 10). Further, Mr. Wilkes’s 

mother testified to receiving the MediSAVE card as well as having reviewed any materials 

she received at the time. (Doc. 67-10 at 2, 4). As with the other Plaintiffs, this testimony 

is sufficient to survive summary judgment because balancing the credibility of the 

testimony is a question of fact for the jury.

Because each Plaintiff has produced sufficient testimony to create a genuine dispute 

of material fact, Plaintiffs’ claims survive summary judgment on the reliance issue. 

B. Statute of Limitations

Defendants have not shown a lack of a genuine dispute of material fact regarding 

when the statute of limitations began to run. In this instance, the discovery that would 

trigger the statute of frauds accrual for consumer fraud is not of the injury from Solodyn, 

but rather the misrepresentation by Defendants regarding the 12-Week Language. The 

discovery rule, as adopted in Arizona and applied to ACFA cases, states the statute of 

limitations for consumer fraud cases begins running “when the defrauded party discovers 

or with reasonable diligence could have discovered the fraud.” Alaface v. Nat’l Inv. Co., 

181 Ariz. 586, 591, 892 P. 2d 1375, 1380 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994). An AFCA claim alleges 

fraud and will begin accruing at the moment a plaintiff discovers—or should be able to 

discover—the underlying fraud. See id. at 591–92 (finding plaintiffs’ AFCA claim began 

accruing once plaintiffs discovered defendant’s representations “were not true and that they 

had been damaged by reliance on the representations”). “Ordinarily, when the cause of 

action accrues is a question for the finder of fact,” with summary judgment appropriate 

where only one reasonable inference can be drawn. Id. at 591.

The parties agree the statute of limitations in this case is one year from the date of 

accrual. See A.R.S. § 12-541(5); (Doc. 55 at 11; Doc. 66 at 15). While Defendants can 

Case 2:21-cv-00145-GMS Document 82 Filed 09/27/23 Page 5 of 6
- 6 -

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

show Plaintiffs knew for years they were injured by the medication itself, they did not point 

to sufficient evidence to establish beyond dispute that Plaintiffs should have discovered the 

misleading nature of the 12-Week Language, or that they did so prior to one year before 

bringing suit. Plaintiff and witness testimony is sufficient to create a genuine dispute as to 

when Defendants discovered the alleged fraud. As such, Defendants have not carried their 

burden for summary judgment on this issue. 

CONCLUSION

Because determining reliance on the 12-Week Language is a matter of weighing the 

credibility of Plaintiffs’ testimony, and because Plaintiffs could have discovered 

Defendants’ misrepresentation as late as January 2020, Defendants’ Motion for Summary 

Judgment is denied. 

Accordingly, 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Summary 

Judgment (Doc. 55) is DENIED. 

Dated this 27th day of September, 2023.

Case 2:21-cv-00145-GMS Document 82 Filed 09/27/23 Page 6 of 6