Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-4_05-cv-00163/USCOURTS-ared-4_05-cv-00163-8/pdf.json

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

---

1

Doc. No. 223.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

WESTERN DIVISION

In re: 

PREMPRO PRODUCTS LIABILITY 

LITIGATION

LINDA REEVES

v.

WYETH

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: 

MDL Docket No. 4:03CV1507-WRW

 4:05CV00163

PLAINTIFF

 

 DEFENDANT

ORDER

After much reflection, I have decided that Plaintiff should not be permitted to present a fraud

theory to the jury. 

First off, I want to note that my reference to “fraud” as a surviving cause of action in the order of

July 11 ,2006 was inadvertent.1

 

Plaintiff did not plead fraud in its Second Amended Complaint, and, I have no reason to doubt the

statement of Plaintiff’s counsel that this failure was inadvertent. In view of this, I would normally permit

Plaintiff to amend to attempt to plead fraud with sufficient specificity, but we are now too near the trial

date, and I am satisfied that amendment at this late date would probably prejudice Defendant. 

I would like for Defendant’s counsel to address, with specificity, their idea of what evidence will

be inadmissible, absent a fraud allegation. In other words, what evidence does Plaintiff now have on the

table that should be removed as a result of this order; of course, I will allow Plaintiff’s counsel to respond. 

I anticipate that this issue will be addressed during the hearing that will commence Monday morning. 

IT IS SO ORDERED this 29th day of July, 2006.

/s/ Wm. R.Wilson,Jr. 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:05-cv-00163-BRW Document 305 Filed 07/29/06 Page 1 of 1