Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-4_05-cv-00163/USCOURTS-ared-4_05-cv-00163-0/pdf.json

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

---

1

See Rush v. Wyeth, et al., 4:05-CV-00497-WRW (E.D. Ark. 2005), Doc. No. 42.

2

Id at Doc. No. 68.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

WESTERN DIVISION

In re: 

PREMPRO PRODUCTS LIABILITY 

LITIGATION

LINDA REEVES

v.

WYETH, et. al.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: 

MDL Docket No. 4:03CV1507-WRW

 4:05CV00163

PLAINTIFF

 

 DEFENDANTS

ORDER

Statute of Limitations

Pending is Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment Re Statute of Limitations (Doc.

No. 63). Plaintiff has responded (Doc. No. 105).

Essentially, Defendants make the same argument that was previously denied in the other

bellwether case.1

 Following oral argument at the May 12, 2006 status conference, the motion

was denied.2

 For the same reasons that were expressed in the status conference and subsequent

order regarding Rush v. Wyeth, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment Re Statute of

Limitations (Doc. No. 63) is DENIED.

Affirmative Defenses

Pending are Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgement Re: Comparative Negligence and

Related Defenses (Doc. No. 56) and Motion for Summary Judgment Re: Affirmative Defenses

(Doc. No. 66). Defendant has responded to both motions (Doc. Nos. 103, 99).

Case 4:05-cv-00163-BRW Document 115 Filed 06/08/06 Page 1 of 2
3

In a March 8, 2006 letter, Wyeth also withdrew affirmative defenses 9, 12, 25, 26, 28,

30, and 31 (See Doc. No. 66-3).

4

Wyeth’s withdrawal of affirmative defense 2 is limited to the statute of repose and not

statute of limitations; so too is the granting of the motion.

5

Incorrectly referred to as affirmative defenses 42-49 in Plaintiff’s motion.

2

 The Motion for Summary Judgement Re: Comparative Negligence and Related Defenses

(Doc. No. 56) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Specifically, the motion is

GRANTED as it relates to Defendant Wyeth’s affirmative defenses 3, 6, and 7, because

Defendant Wyeth withdrew those affirmative defenses.3 The motion is DENIED as it pertains to

affirmative defenses 5 (comparative fault) and 10 (failure to mitigate).

The Motion for Summary Judgment Re: Affirmative Defenses (Doc. No. 66) is

GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Specifically, the motion is GRANTED as it

relates to Wyeth affirmative defenses 2,4 11, 23, 27. The motion is DENIED as it pertains to

affirmative defenses 1, 4, 8, 13, 14, 17 and DENIED without prejudice as it pertains to Wyeth’s

affirmative defenses regarding punitive damages -- 32, 33, and 34.5

IT IS SO ORDERED this 8th day of June, 2006. 

/s/ Wm. R.Wilson,Jr. 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:05-cv-00163-BRW Document 115 Filed 06/08/06 Page 2 of 2