Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-4_06-cv-00476/USCOURTS-ared-4_06-cv-00476-1/pdf.json

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

---

1

Doc. Nos. 27, 29, 30, & 31.

2

Doc. No. 21.

3

No. 4:03-CV-329 (E.D. Ark. filed May 9, 2003).

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

WESTERN DIVISION

In re: 

PREMPRO PRODUCTS LIABILITY 

LITIGATION

TERESA WHITE, et al

v.

WYETH, INC., et al.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

MDL Docket No. 4:03CV1507-WRW

 4:06CV00476

 PLAINTIFFS

 

 DEFENDANTS

ORDER

Pending are Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand Based Upon the Court’s Suggestion of

Remand Order of January 16, 2007 (Doc. No. 21) and Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification

and to Amend Class Definition (Doc. No. 22). Defendants responded to both motions.1

1. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand

Plaintiffs assert that this case should be remanded because it is “subject to the very same

West Virginia laws that the court found to be unsettled and in need of being addressed by West

Virginia judges.”2 Plaintiffs’ assertion is without merit. The case to which Plaintiffs refer, Kuhn

v. Wyeth,

3

 involved uncertainty regarding reliance under the West Virginia Consumer Credit and

Protection Act. There is no uncertainty here. This case involves common law negligence

claims, the elements of which are well-settled. 

Case 4:06-cv-00476-BRW Document 33 Filed 03/28/07 Page 1 of 3
4

Doc. No. 22.

5

White, et al v. Wyeth, et al, No. 2:06-CV-00080 (S.D. W. Va. filed February 3, 2006),

Doc. No. 1.

6

Doc. No. 22.

7

Id.

8

FED. R. CIV. P. 23(b).

9

In re American Medical Sys., Inc., 75 F.3d 1069, 1079 (6th Cir. 1996).

2

2. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification

Plaintiffs seek certification of a personal injury class under FRCP 23(b)(3) based on 

negligence claims -- specifically negligent failure to test and negligent failure to warn.4

Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint proposes the following class:

The plaintiff class consists of (1) all residents of West Virginia who used hormone

therapy tablets (whether or not manufactured by the defendants) and subsequently

suffered harm, including, but not limited to, any of the following: breast cancer,

ovarian cancer, gallstones or gallbladder cancer, biliary tract or hepatic injury, deep

vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, stroke, heart attack, Alzheimer’s disease or

vascular dementia, lupus, scleroderma, asthma, or death, fear of cancer, or medical

monitoring expenses as a result and (2) all persons residing outside West Virginia

who were prescribed hormone therapy tablets by a physician licensed and practicing

in West Virginia.5

In the motion for class certification, Plaintiffs assert that this class should be “limited to

West Virginia claimants . . . [or] further limited to the claimants represented by the undersigned

law firm, The Calwell Practice, PLLC.”6 Plaintiffs also suggest that the class would be limited

to people “who ingested HRT drugs for two years or more prior to 2004, and who were injured

as a result thereof.”7

To obtain class certification, Plaintiffs must meet all four requirements of Rule 23(a) and

the requirements of at least one of the subdivisions of Rule 23(b).8

 A case is “not maintainable

as a class action by virtue of its designation as such in the pleadings.”9

 Instead, “[t]here must be

an adequate statement of the basic facts to indicate that each requirement of the rule is

Case 4:06-cv-00476-BRW Document 33 Filed 03/28/07 Page 2 of 3
10Id.

11Id.

12In re Prempro, 230 F.R.D. 555 (E.D. Ark. 2005).

13See In re Baycol Products Litigation, 218 F.R.D. 197 (D. Minn. 2003); In re Rezulin

Products Liability Litigation, 210 F.R.D. 61 (S.D.N.Y. 2002); In re PPA Products Liability

Litigation, 208 F.R.D. 625 (W.D. Wash. 2002); In re Paxil Litigation, 212 F.R.D. 539, (C.D.

Cal. 2003); In re Propulsid Products Liability Litigation, 208 F.R.D. 133, 139 (E.D. La. 2002);

In re Vioxx Products Liability Litigation, 239 F.R.D. 450 (E.D. La. 2006).

3

fulfilled.”10 The party seeking class certification has the burden of establishing that certification

is appropriate.11

Plaintiffs have not met their burden. Not only have Plaintiffs failed to cite any cases

supporting their motion for class certification, they have failed to take this case outside of my

August 30, 2005 order,12 as well as, the long line of product liability MDLs that have rejected

class certification in pharmaceutical drug cases.13

CONCLUSION

Based on the findings of fact and conclusions of law above, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand

Based Upon the Court’s Suggestion of Remand Order of January 16, 2007 (Doc. No. 21) and

Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification and to Amend Class Definition (Doc. No. 22) are

DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED this 28th day of March, 2007.

/s/ Wm. R.Wilson,Jr. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 4:06-cv-00476-BRW Document 33 Filed 03/28/07 Page 3 of 3