Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_12-cv-08223/USCOURTS-azd-3_12-cv-08223-1/pdf.json

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

Paul Schenk, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, 

Defendant.

No. CV-12-08223-PCT-NVW

ORDER 

 Before the Court is Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation’s Motion to Preclude 

Plaintiffs’ Punitive Damages Claim (Doc. 53), the Response (Doc. 101), and the Reply 

(Doc. 107). Novartis Pharmaceuticals’ Motion to Preclude Plaintiffs’ Punitive Damages 

Claim (Doc. 53) will be read as a motion for summary judgment on the issue of punitive 

damages and will be denied. 

I. FACTS 

 This action is one of over eight hundred product liability suits currently pending 

against Novartis for its pharmaceutical products Aredia and Zometa. Aredia and Zometa 

are bisphosphonate drugs primarily indicated for the prevention of bone fractures in 

patients with hypercalcemia of malignancy in cancers that have metastasized to the bone. 

All pending cases concern Novartis’ alleged failure to warn of the risk of osteonecrosis of 

the jaw associated with the use of the two drugs. This action differs from the other cases 

filed because Plaintiff Paul Schenk was not prescribed Aredia and Zometa for 

metastasized cancer but was instead prescribed the drugs off-label to prevent fractures 

associated with a rare genetic disease: osteogenesis imperfecta. 

Case 3:12-cv-08223-NVW Document 112 Filed 08/14/14 Page 1 of 4
- 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 

 This action is brought against Novartis by Paul Schenk and his wife. It was 

originally filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia on 

September 4, 2007. Shortly thereafter, it was consolidated with a larger multidistrict 

litigation proceeding in the Middle District of Tennessee, In re Aredia and Zometa 

Products Liability Litigation. On September 25, 2012, the Tennessee court remanded the 

case back to the District Court for the District of Columbia, where the parties then 

stipulated to transfer the case to the District of Arizona because Mr. Schenk and many of 

his treating physicians reside within the District of Arizona’s jurisdictional boundaries. 

II. LEGAL STANDARD FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

 A party moving for summary judgment must demonstrate that there is no genuine 

issue as to any material fact in order to be entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 56(a). At the summary judgment stage, courts view all evidence in the light 

most favorable to the non-moving party. Rohr v. Salt River Project Agric. Imp. & Power 

Dist., 555 F.3d 850, 864 (9th Cir. 2009). The movant has the burden of showing the 

absence of genuine issues of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 

(1986).

III. ANALYSIS 

Novartis’ Motion to Preclude Plaintiffs’ Punitive Damages Claim (Doc. 54) states 

Novartis is not liable for punitive damages because Aredia and Zometa are approved by 

the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) and currently remain on the market and 

because both Arizona and New Jersey law precludes punitive damages in a products 

liability action involving FDA-approved drugs. (Doc. 53). Novartis also argues that 

Plaintiffs lack standing to enforce the FDA regulations under the Arizona and New Jersey 

punitive damages statutes. (Id.). Plaintiffs, in turn, assert that Mr. Schenk received the 

bulk of his Zometa treatments in California and that under the District of Columbia’s 

choice of law principles, California punitive damages law applies to this action. 

(Doc. 101). In its Reply, Novartis again asserts New Jersey or Arizona law applies, and 

for the first time, argues that Plaintiffs have failed to put forth the evidence necessary to 

establish a prima facie case for punitive damages under any state’s law. (Doc. 107). 

Case 3:12-cv-08223-NVW Document 112 Filed 08/14/14 Page 2 of 4
- 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 

a. Applicable punitive damages law 

 Because this case was initially filed in the United States District Court for the 

District of Columbia, the District of Columbia’s choice of law provisions govern which 

state’s punitive damages statute controls. Novartis argues either Arizona, where Mr. 

Schenk resides, or New Jersey, where Novartis is headquartered, law governs. Mr. 

Schenk, however, argues that because California was where he received the majority of 

his Zometa treatments, California law should control. Novartis counters Mr. Schenk’s 

California claims by asserting Mr. Schenk was largely treated for his osteonecrosis of the 

jaw in Arizona, but Mr. Schenck’s assertions that he was treated in California are 

reinforced by the fact that a large portion of his medical records reviewed by the expert 

witnesses in this action are from Loma Linda University, located in California. 

 It is not clear from the evidence submitted exactly where Mr. Schenk received the 

majority of his dispositive medical treatment. This means which state’s law controls for 

the purposes of punitive damages will turn on facts that are not conclusively established 

on this motion. Those facts must be developed at trial. 

 Similarly, Novartis’ defense of federal preemption against punitive damages 

cannot be adjudicated in the abstract without first determining which state’s law governs. 

As an example, at least one court has found no preemption of California’s punitive 

damages law and has allowed a punitive damages claim to proceed to a jury on a cause of 

action nearly identical to Mr. Schenk’s. See Stanley v. Novartis Pharm. Corp., ___ 

F.Supp.2d. ___ , 2014 WL 1316217 (C.D. Ca. 2014) (applying California law and 

allowing a punitive damages claim on a failure to warn products liability cause of action 

against Novartis for the drugs Aredia and Zometa to proceed to trial). In contrast, 

Arizona’s statute permitting an award of punitive damages against drug manufacturers 

has been declared preempted in a similar case, but only once by a district court. See 

Kobar ex rel. Kobar v. Novartis Corp, 378 F.Supp.2d 1166, 1172 (D. Ariz. 2005) 

(holding A.R.S. § 12-701(B) is preempted under Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs’ Legal 

Comm., 531 U.S. 341 (2001)). 

Case 3:12-cv-08223-NVW Document 112 Filed 08/14/14 Page 3 of 4
- 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 

 Accordingly, the question of federal preemption of punitive damages is postponed 

for trial depending on determination of the applicable state law. 

 b. Establishing a prima facie case for punitive damages 

 Novartis did not contend in its Motion (Doc. 53) that Plaintiffs’ evidence falls 

short of a prima facie case for punitive damages under any state’s law. Novartis first 

raised that in its Reply brief. (Doc. 107). Arguments first made in the Reply are not 

considered as they deprive the other side of a fair chance to respond. In any event, 

whether Plaintiffs have the facts necessary for a prima facie case for punitive damages 

may also be affected by which state’s law governs, which must be determined at trial. 

 “At the summary judgment stage, the trial judge’s function is not himself to weigh 

the evidence and determine the truth of the matter but to determine whether there is a 

genuine issue for trial.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 242-43 (1986). 

If at the close of trial Plaintiffs have no evidence to sustain punitive damages under the 

applicable, or any law, then Novartis will be entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 

Accordingly, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation’s Motion to Preclude Plaintiffs’ 

Punitive Damages Claim (Doc. 53) will be denied. 

 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation’s 

Motion to Preclude Plaintiffs’ Punitive Damages Claim (Doc. 53) is denied. 

 DATED this 14th day of August, 2014. 

Case 3:12-cv-08223-NVW Document 112 Filed 08/14/14 Page 4 of 4