Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01536/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01536-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 245
Nature of Suit: Real Property 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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WYATT HOWARD

Plaintiff,

v.

GLAXOSMITHKLINE, plc.,

SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORP.,

Defendants. 

CIV-S-05-1536 DFL GGH

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION 

AND ORDER

Plaintiff Wyatt Howard (“Howard”), a state prisoner,

contends that defendants’ drug, Paxil, was responsible for his

criminal conduct. He brings suit for damages under state tort

law. Defendants move for summary judgment arguing that Howard’s

claims are barred by the statute of limitations. For the reasons

stated below, the court GRANTS defendants’ motion for summary

judgment. 

I.

Howard alleges that, on September 16, 1999, he stabbed Dawn

Erickson (“Erickson”) and injured himself “while under the

influence of Paxil.” (Compl. ¶ 7.) Howard was charged with

Case 2:05-cv-01536-DFL-GGH Document 27 Filed 12/16/05 Page 1 of 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

2

attempted murder for stabbing Erickson. (Childers Decl. Ex. 7 at

8.) On January 31, 2001, Howard withdrew his plea of not guilty

by reason of insanity and pled no contest to the charges against

him. (Id.) 

On March 28, 2001, Howard filed a motion for continuance of

judgment and sentencing. (Childers Decl. Ex. 8.) In that

motion, Howard requested additional time to investigate the

possibility of bringing a motion for withdrawal of his plea. 

(Id.) In support of the motion, Howard’s attorney attached an

affidavit stating that he needed additional time to investigate

the effect Paxil had on Howard. (Childers Decl. Ex. 2.) 

On November 13, 2001, Howard sent a letter to the assigned

Sacramento Superior Court Judge requesting a modification of his

sentence. (Childers Decl. Ex. 4.) Howard stated in the letter

that, at the time he attacked Erickson, he was taking

“psychotropic medication” which “contributed greatly to [his] out

of character behavior.” (Id.) On November 19, 2001, the court 

denied the request. (Id.) 

On February 9, 2005, Howard filed a petition for writ of

error coram nobis to vacate the judgment against him. (Childers

Decl. Ex. 5 at 1.) Howard argued that Paxil caused him to be

legally insane when he attacked Erickson. (Id. at 3.) On March

15, 2005, the assigned Sacramento Superior Court Judge construed

Howard’s petition as a petition for writ of habeas corpus and

denied the claim. (Childers Decl. Ex. 6.) 

On March 22, 2004, the FDA issued a Public Health Advisory

Case 2:05-cv-01536-DFL-GGH Document 27 Filed 12/16/05 Page 2 of 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

 California Code of Civil Procedure section 335.1 extended 1

the limitations period to two years for claims accruing after

January 1, 2003. See Mojica, 131 Cal.App.4th at 1071.

 Because Howard’s claim arises from a personal injury, the 2

one year statute of limitations also applies to the express

warranty cause of action. See Cardoso v. Am. Med. Sys., Inc.,

183 Cal.App.3d 994, 1000 (1986).

3

cautioning doctors to monitor patients who take antidepressants

for suicidal thoughts and hostility. (Corona Decl. Ex. A.) On

August 1, 2005, Howard filed this suit alleging that Paxil caused

his attack on Erickson. (Compl. ¶ 8.)

II. 

Defendants argue that Howard’s claims are barred by the

one-year statute of limitations. (Def.’s Mot. at 5.) Under

former California Code of Civil Procedure section 340(3) , which 1

applied at the time of Howard’s alleged injury, personal injury

actions must be filed within one year of the accrual of the

plaintiff’s claim. See Mojica v. 4311 Wilshire, LLC, 131 2

Cal.App.4th 1069, 1071 (2005). A cause of action accrues at “the

time when the cause of action is complete with all of its

elements.” Nogart v. The Upjohn Co., 21 Cal.4th 383, 398 (1999).

The “discovery rule” provides an exception to the general

rule of accrual. Fox v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc., 35 Cal.4th

797, 807 (2005). That rule “postpones accrual of a cause of

action until the plaintiff discovers, or has reason to discover,

the cause of action.” Id. (citations omitted). “A plaintiff has

reason to discover a cause of action when he or she ‘has reason

at least to suspect a factual basis for its elements.’” Id.

Case 2:05-cv-01536-DFL-GGH Document 27 Filed 12/16/05 Page 3 of 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

4

(citation omitted). Under the discovery rule, “plaintiffs are

required to conduct a reasonable investigation after becoming

aware of an injury, and are charged with knowledge of the

information that would have been revealed by such an

investigation.” Id. at 808.

Defendants argue that, as early as March 28, 2001, Howard

suspected that Paxil played a role in his criminal behavior. 

(Mot. at 7.) Defendants cite to three pieces of evidence to

support this assertion. (See id. at 7-9.) 

First, defendants note that Howard’s former attorney, Jan

David Karowsky (“Karowsky”), filed a declaration on March 28,

2001, in which he requested additional time to investigate the

connection between Paxil and Howard’s violent behavior. (Id. at

7.) In that declaration, Karowsky stated, “I am personally aware

that there has been at least anecdotal confirmation that

increasing a dosage of the drug Paxil may cause individuals to

act out of character, in irrational, violent, and uncontrollable

ways.” (Childers Decl. Ex. 2.) 

Second, defendants note that, on November 12, 2001, Howard

sent a letter to the assigned Superior Court Judge requesting a

reduction in his sentence and suggesting that Paxil affected his

behavior. (Mot. at 8.) In that letter, Howard stated the

following: 

[a]t the time of the incident, I was under a doctor’s

care for depression and was taking psychotropic

medications. I made a terrible mistake by consuming

alcohol during this time. Your Honor, I’m not making

excuses or minimizing my actions, but the effect of

Case 2:05-cv-01536-DFL-GGH Document 27 Filed 12/16/05 Page 4 of 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

5

what was in my system contributed greatly to this out

of character behavior. 

(Childers Decl. Ex. 4.) 

Finally, defendants point to the state court’s denial of

Howard’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. (Mot. at 8.) In

that petition, Howard attached a number of articles written in

2004 which suggested that taking Paxil could lead to violence or

suicide. (Childers Decl. Ex. 6 at 1.) In finding that the

petition was untimely, the court noted that the authors of those

articles stated that studies have suggested a link between

antidepressants and violent behavior since 1994. (Id. at 3.) 

Therefore, the court found that the articles cited by Howard did

not provide newly discovered evidence. (Id.)

In response, Howard acknowledges that: (1) Karowsky

suspected that Paxil may have affected Howard’s actions; and (2)

he suspected that Paxil “contributed to his out of character

behavior.” (Opp’n at 3.) However, Howard claims that he and

Karwosky did not suspect that Paxil was a “direct cause” of his

violent behavior. (Id.) 

The claimed distinction between a “direct” and an “indirect”

cause is not one that the law recognizes in this context. The

discovery rule only delays accrual of the cause of action until

the plaintiff “suspects . . . that someone has done something

wrong” to him, not until he suspects the “direct cause” of his

injuries. Jolly v. Eli Lilly & Co., 44 Cal.3d 1103, 1110 (1988). 

Because it is undisputed that by November 13, 2001, Howard

Case 2:05-cv-01536-DFL-GGH Document 27 Filed 12/16/05 Page 5 of 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

6

suspected that Paxil contributed to his violent behavior, Howard

had until November 13, 2002 to file a claim against defendants. 

He did not file this complaint until August 1, 2005. Therefore,

the complaint is barred by the statute of limitations.

III.

For the reasons stated above, the court GRANTS defendants’

motion for summary judgment. The clerk shall enter judgment. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 12/14/2005

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-01536-DFL-GGH Document 27 Filed 12/16/05 Page 6 of 6