### IN THE UNITED STATE S C OURT OF AP P E A LS F ORT HE F IF T H CIRCUI T

N o. 11- 31073

J ULI E DEM AHY, Pl ai nt i f f

- Appe l l ant v. S CHW AR Z P HAR M A, I NCO RP OR AT ED ; A CT AV I S , I NCO RP OR AT ED , I ndi vi dual l y and as Succ es so r i n I nt er es t of Pu r epac Ph ar m ac eut i c al Com pa ny; W YE TH , I ndi vi dua l l y and a s Suc c e s s o r - i n- I nt e r e s t o f A. H

. Rob i ns C o m p a n y , In c o r p o r a te d ,

D efen da n t s- A pp el l ees

A p p ea l f

rom the U n i ted S tates D i stri ct C ou rt f or t he E as t er n D i st r i c t of Loui si ana

B ef ore B E N A V ID E S , O W E N , an d S O U T H W IC K , C i rcui t Ju dg es. P E R C U R I A M: I n t hi s c as e , Pl ai nt i f f

- Appe l l ant J ul i e D e m ahy (“D e m ahy ” ) a ppe al s t he d i stri c t c o u r t ’ s d en i a l of tw o m oti on s: a m oti on f or re l i ef f

rom j u d gm en t as to D efen da n t s- A pp el l ees W yeth, I n c. ( “ W yeth”) an d S chw arz P h arm a, I n c. ( “ Sc hw ar z ” ) , m ak e r s o f t he pr e s c r i pt i o n dr ug m e t o c l o pr am i de und e r t he b r and
n am e R egl an , an d a m ot i on t o set asid e ju dg m en t as t o D efen da n t

- A pp el l ee A ct avis , I n c. ( “A ct avis ” ) , a m an u fact u rer of a gen eri c versi on of m et ocl opram i de. U nit e d S ta te s C ou rt o f Ap pe a ls

Fifth C ir c uit 

## F I L E D October 25, 2012 Lyl e W . Cayce C lerkN o. 11- 31073

2 W e f i nd t hat t he di s t r ict co u rt w as c o r r e c t i n de nyi ng t he m o t i o ns a nd,
a c c o r d i n g l y , w e a f

f i r m. FA CT UAL AND PROC EDURAL HI S TORY T h is c a s e s te m s fr o m P la in tiff-A p p e lla n t D e m a h y ’ s u s e o f g e n e r ic
m et oc l opr am i de. The Food and D r ug A dm i ni st r at i on ( “ FD A ” ) appr ove d R egl an f or use i n 198 0 an d gen eri c m et ocl opram i de h as been produ ced by a n u m ber of ge ne r i c m anufac t ur e r s s i nc e 1 98 5, i nc l u d in g b y Act av i s . W ye t h a c qui r e d t he
r i g h t s t o nam e- br and R egl an i n 1989 and i t m anufac t ure d R egl an unti l 2001,
w hen i t so l d t he r i ght s t o Sc hw ar z. Sc hw ar z m anufac t ure d nam e- br and R egl an
u n til 2 0 0 8 , w h e n it s o ld th e rig h ts to A la v e n P h a r m a c e u tic a l L L C

. In 19 8 5 , the F D A r e q u i r ed tha t m etoclop ra m i d e’ s l a b el be u p d a ted to in c lu d e a w a r n in g a b o u t t h e r i s k o f ta r d iv e d y s k in e s ia , a n o fte n irr e v e r s ib le
n eu rol ogi cal di sorder, an d A ct avis up da t ed i t s l abel t o i n cl u de these w arn i n gs. I n 2004, t he FD A appr ove d t he nam e- br an d m anufac t ure r ’ s r eques t ed c hange t o t h e R egl an l abel, add i n g a w arn i n g t h at R egl an shou l d n ot be used f or m ore t h an t w el ve w eeks. I n 200 9, t h e F D A i ssued a bl ack-box w arn i n g— i t s s t rongest
w ar ni ng— st at i ng t hat t r eat m ent w i t h m et oc l opr am i de c an c ause t ar di ve dy s ki ne s i a, a nd t r e at m e nt “ f o r l o nge r t han 12 w e e ks s ho ul d b e a vo i de d i n a l l b ut
r a r e ca ses . ” Pl i v a, I nc . v . Me ns i ng , 1 3 1 S

. C t
. 2 5 6 7 , 2 5 7 3 ( 2 0 1 1 ) ( quo t i ng P h y sicia n ’ s D e sk R e fer e n ce 2 9 0 2 (65 th ed

. 2 0 1 1 )). O n A pri l 28, 200 8, D em ah y f i l ed the curr e n t s u it i n st ate c ou rt f or da m ages aga i n st W yeth, S chw arz, an d A ct avis

. T h e com pl ai n t sough t dam ages t h at D em ah y al l eged l y suff ered du e t o her use of gen eri c m et ocl opram i de f rom 20 02 t o 20 07 , as s e r t i ng a va r i e t y o f t o r t c l ai m s und e r Lo ui s i ana l aw. Dem ahy
a l l eg es th a t he r u se of m etoclop ra m i d e m a n u factu red b y A ctav i s ca u sed h er to dev el op tardi ve dy ski n es i a . On J u n e 2, 200 8, t h e D efen da n t s- A pp el l ees r em oved t he c as e t o t he Eas t e r n Di s t r i c t o f Lo ui s i ana b as e d o n di ve r s i t y o f c i t i z e ns hi p.N o. 11- 31073

3 O n Ju l y 25, 200 8, D em ah y, W yeth, an d S chw arz j oi n t l y m oved t o di sm i ss t h e cl ai m s aga i n st W yeth an d S chw arz w i t h ou t prej u di ce, an d t h e di st ri ct court gran t ed the m ot i on on Ju l y 28, 200 8. O n Ju l y 29, 200 8, A ct avis f i l ed a m ot i on t o di sm i ss al l of

t h e cl ai m s a g a i n st i t un der F ederal R u l e of C i vi l P rocedure 1 2 (b ) ( 6 ) , a r g u i n g t h a t a l l o f De ma h y ’ s c l a i ms we r e p r e e mp t ed by f e d e r a l l a w. T h e di st ri ct court den i ed the m ot i on on O ct ober 28, 200 8, an d on i n t erl ocutory appeal, th is C our t af f i r m ed t he di st r i c t c our t ’ s dec i si on o n January 8 , 2010. D em ahy v. A ct avis , I n c. , 5 9 3 F .3 d 4 2 8 (5 th C ir . 2 0 1 0 ). O n J une 2 3, 2 01 1, t he Suprem e C o ur t r e ve r s e d t hi s Cour t ’ s de c i s i o n, h ol di n g t h at s t ate l aw s t h at w ou l d requ i re generi c m an u fact u rers t o chan ge a dr ug’ s l ab e l a r e pr e e m pt e d b y fe de r all aw ba s e d o n i m po s s i bi l i t y pr e e m pt i o n,
w hi c h asks “ w het her t he pr i vat e par t y c oul d i ndependent l y do under fede r al l aw
w h a t state l a w req u i res o f i t. ” Me ns i ng , 131 S. C t
. at 257 9. Sp eci f i cal l y, becau se federal l aw requ i res gen eri c dru g l abels t o be t h e sam e as n am e- bran d la b e ls, st ate l aw s r equ i ri n g gen eri c m et ocl opram i de m an u fact u rers t o a t t a c h a safer l abel t o t hei r pro duct ar e pre em pt ed by t he fede r al l aw . Id. a t 2 5 7 8
. Justi ce Thom as , w r i t i ng f

o r t he m aj o r i t y, r e c o gni z e d t hat t he Cour t ’ s de c i s i o n de al t t he p la in tiffs a n “u n fo r tu n a te h a n d ,” b e c a u s e if th e y h a d ta k e n R e g la n , “th e ir la w s u its w o u ld n o t b e p r e -e m p te d

. B u t b e c a u s e p h a r m a c is ts , a c tin g in fu ll
ac c or d w i t h st at e l aw , subs t i t ut ed g ener i c m et oc l opr am i de i nst ead, f ede r al l aw p re-em p ts t h ese l a w su i ts. ” Id

. at 2581. Th e Su prem e C ou rt rem an ded t h e case to this C ou rt, an d this C o u r t r e m a n d e d the cas e to th e d i stri ct cou rt w i th i ns t r uc t i o ns t o e nt e r j udg m e nt i n fav o r o f Ac t av i s. O n Augus t 3 0, 2 01 1, t he d is tr ic t c o u r t e n te r e d ju d g m e n t in fa v o r o f A c ta v is a n d d is m is s e d D e m a h y ’ s s u it
w ith p r eju d ic e . A f t er t h e entry of

j u dg m en t , D em ah y f i l ed t w o m ot i on s bef

ore t h e di st ri ct
c o u r t. F ir s t, o n S e p te m b e r 2 8 , 2 0 1 1 , D e m a h y file d a m o tio n u n d e r F e d e r a l R u le of C i vi l P rocedure 60(b) ( 5) , requesti n g t h at t h e di st ri ct court gr a n t h er r el i efN o. 11- 31073

4 f rom i t s July 28, 200 8 order di s m is s in g W yeth an d S chw arz. Secon d, on S e p te m b e r 29, 2011, D em ahy f i l ed a m ot i on under Feder al R ul e o f C i vil P rocedure 59(e) , or al t erna t i vel y R u l e 52(b) or 60(b) ( 6) , asking the di st ri ct court t o a m e nd i t s j udg m e nt o f di s m i s s ala s t o Ac t av i s . O n O ctob e r 1 4, 2 01 1, t he di s t r i c t c o ur t de nied b o t h o f t he s e m o t i o ns i n a s i ngl e o r de r , s t at i ng t hat t he
m an da t e of t h i s C ou rt i n st ructed di sm i ssal of al l of D em ah y’ s c l ai m s and entry
o f j udg m e nt i n fav o r of A c t av i s , a nd t hat i t w as b o und by t he s e i ns t r uc t i o ns p u rsu a n t t o th e “m a n d a te ru l e.” D em ahy v. W yet h I n c. , N o. 08- 3616, 2011 W L 5 0 5 6 9 8 7 , a t * 1 (E .D . L a . O c t. 1 4 , 2 0 1 1 ). T h is tim e ly a p p e a l fo llo w e d

. S TA NDARD OF RE VI EW Th i s C our t r evi ew s an or der denyi ng a m ot i on f or r el i ef under Feder al R u le o f C iv il P r o c e d u r e 6 0 (b ) fo r a n a b u s e o f d is c r e tio n . Fr az arv . Ladd , 457 F

. 3d 432 , 435 ( 5th C i r. 200 6)

. W e al so r evi ew a den i al of a R u l e 59(e) m ot i on to a m e n d a ju d g m e n t fo r a n a b u s e o f d is c r e tio n . R osenblat t v. Un i t ed W ay of G reat er Hou s. , 607 F

. 3d 413 , 419 ( 5th C i r. 201 0)

. W e revi ew de n ovo w h et h er a di st r i c t c our t ac c urat el y i nt er pre t ed and appl i ed t he di r ec t i ves of an
a p p e lla te co u r t’s m a n d a te
. Un i t ed S t ate s v. L ee , 358 F

. 3d 315 , 320 ( 5th C i r. 2 0 0 4 ). A N A L Y S IS In h er a p p ea lof th e d i stri ct c ou rt’ s d en i a l of h er R u l e 6 0 (b)( 5 ) m oti on to
r e i ns t at e h e r c l ai m s a ga i ns t W ye t h a nd Sc hw ar z , D e m ahy a r gue s t hat s he shou l d be gran t ed rel i ef becau se t h e Me ns i ngdeci si on si gn i f i can t l y al t ered case l aw provi di n g t h at nam e- bran d m an u fact u rers coul d n ot be he ld li a b le f or da m ages suff

ered f rom u si n g a gen eri c m an u fact u rer’ s produ ct s. W i t h res pect to h e r R u le 5 9 (e ) m o tio n , D e m a h y a r g u e s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t i n c o r r e c tly i n t e r preted t h i s C ou rt ’ s m an da t e di rect i n g di sm i ssal of D em ah y’ s c l ai m s agai n st A c t a v is , a n d th u s e r r e d in d e n y in g D e m a h y ’s m o t io n to a m e n d t h e c o u r t ’s j udg m e nt o f

di s m i s s al

. W e c o ns i de r D e m ahy ’ s a r gum e nt s i n t ur n.N o. 11- 31073

Itis n o t ab le t ha t , a lth ou gh D em a hy ’s cl a ims a g a instWy et h a nd S chw a rz w ere 1 di s mi s s edwithout p r ejudic e, thus g iv in gth e di s tric t c ourt juri s dic tion overandp owerto mo dif y its or d er of di s mi s s al u n til a f i n alju d gme n t wasi s s u ed , see S toffels v. S BC Com m c’ns, I nc. , 6 7 7 F. 3 d 7 2 0 , 7 2 6

– 7 2 8( 5 th Cir . 2 0 1 2 ), this Court ha s j uri sdiction ov er the claims beca use wef in dth atth e y we r es ubj e c tt oth ef i n al ju d gm e n t i s s u e d by t h e di s t ric t c o u rt o nAu gu s t30 , 20 11 f oll owi ng r emandf

rom thi sC ourt. Wyeth and Schwarzar e not s p ecif ic ally mentione d i nth eact u ale n t ry o f

j u d gm e n t , butin c irc u m s t an c e s i n which a c o u rto r d e ri sambi gu o u sas t o w ha tpa rtie s a nd cla ims a re b ein gdispose d of, a nd w he re “t hedistrict cou rt clea rly i nten d [ ed] to ef

f ec t a f i naldi s mi s s al of

a cl aim, we willc ons true its or d er acc or di ngly, d es p ite amb i guousl anguag e th at mi ght indic ate oth erwi s e.” Picco v. Glo bal M a r i neDr i l l i ng C

o. , 90 0 F .2 d 8 4 6 , 8 4 9 n.4 ( 5 th Cir . 1 9 9 0 ). A motion aski ng the c ourt to r ec ons i d er a p ri or ruli ng i s evalu ated either as a motion 2 t o“ alt e ro ram e n da ju d gm e n t” u n d e rRu l e59 (e) o ra sa m o t i o nf o r“r e li e f

f ro ma f i n al j udg m ent , o r d e r , o r p ro c e e di n g” u n d e r Ru l e 60( b)

. Th e ru l e u n d e r which t h e m ot ion is c on s i d eredi sbas edo nwh enth e mo tionwasf il ed

. TexasA &M

Res e a rc h Found . v. M a gna T ransp. , In c. , 33 8 F.3 d 39 4, 40 0 ( 5th Cir . 20 03 )

. If the m otion wa sf il edwithin twenty- ei ght da y s a ft er t heen t ryof t he j udg m en t , t he m ot ion is t rea t ed a s t ho ugh it w a s fil ed u nde r Rule 59, an dif

it wasf il edo u ts i d e of

th at ti me , it i san alyz edu n d erRu l e 60. Id . H er e, th e r el evant m ot ionw a s fil ed w ith in t hea pplicab le t w en t y -eightda ytim e fra m e, a nd w e t hu s con sider it a s a mot ion to a me nd the j udgm ent under Rule 5 9 (e). Bec ause the di s tric t c ourt, i n d enying Dema hy’ s 60 (b)( 5) mo tion, r eli edonth e mand ate 3 f rom thi sC ourt, it wou l dal s o be p os s ibleto r evi ew th e d i s tric t c ourt’ sdi s mi s s al underth e mandate rul e, asdi s c us s edbel ow with r es p ec t to the c l aimsaga i ns t Ac tav i s . Thi sdi s tinction i sin c on s equ enti al , h ow ev er , s i n c e th e te s t f orde cid in g wh eth era c ourt may devi atef roma man d atei s th e s ameasth e te s t f orame n di n g a ju d gme n t u n d erRu l e 59(e)

. See Unit ed S tates v. M a t t h e ws , 3 1 2 F

. 3 d 6 5 2 , 6 5 7 (5 t h Cir. 2 0 0 2 ) (describ ingsa m e t hre e sce na rios un der w hich departure f

rom ma ndat e i s p ermis sib le)

. 5 1. C l ai m s A gainst W yeth an d S chw arz ( N am e- B ran d D efen da n t s) 1 B e c a u s e it w a s fi l ed w i t h i n th e r e le v a n t ti m e p e r io d , w e c o n s id e r D e m a h y ’s R u l e 60(b) ( 5) m ot i on as a m ot i on t o am en d t h e j u dg m en t un der F ederal R u l e of C i vil P roce d u re 5 9 (e)

. U n d er R u l e 5 9 (e) , a m en d i n g a j u d gm en t i s ap p rop ri a te 2 ( 1) w h ere t h ere has been an i n t ervening cha n ge i n t h e contr ol l i n g l aw ; ( 2) w h ere t h e m ovan t presents n ew l y di scovered evi den ce t h atwa s p r e vi ou sl y u n ava i l able; or ( 3) t o cor recta m an i fest err or of l aw or fact
. Sc hi l l e rv . Phy s i c i ans Res

. G r p. Inc. , 342 F

. 3d 563 , 567 ( 5th C i r. 200 3)

. A m ot i on un der R u l e 59 can n ot be used 3 t o r ai s e a r gum e nt s o r c l ai m s “ t hat c o ul d, a nd s ho ul d, ha ve b e e n m ad e b e f o r e t heN o. 11- 31073

Demahy argue sth at the LP LA, which p rovi d es that a manuf actu r eri s“a p er s on or 4 entity who i sin t he busines sof manuf actu ri ng a p roduct f

orp l aceme nt i nto tr ade or c ommerc e,” La

. Rev. Stat. An n. § 9:2 80 0.5 3, does not app ly to h ercl aimsbec auseWyethand Schwarzar e n ot “ manuf actu r er s ,” given th at they h av e n o c onn ec tion to the p roduct s he a ct u a l l y con sum ed. T his a rgum en tis un a v a iling . T hev a stmaj orit yof decision s ha v e h eld that th e LPLA broadly app li es to all s uits i nvolvi ng i njuri es f rom p roducts , and thes e d eci s i ons r ejec tedth e ar gument that c ommon l awtort cl aims c an s till be brou ght f orinjuri ess temming f romp rodu c tsu n d erf

ac ts n early i d entic al to th os e i nth e c u rr ent c as e. SeeCoope r v. W yeth , N o. 09- CV

- 929, 2010 WL 4318816 , at *2 (M .D. La. Oc t. 26, 2010) ; Jo hn sonv. T EVA Pharm a. US A, In c. , N o. 2:10-C V -404 , 2010 WL 3271934 , at *1–3 (W. D. La. Au g. 16, 2010) ; Cra i g v . P fizer , N o. 3:10- 00227, 2010 WL 2649545, at* 2–4 (W. D. La. M ay 26, 2010) ; W as h ingt onv . Wy e t h, In c. , No

. 3:09- CV

- 01343, 2010 WL 450351, at* 2 (W. D. La. Feb. 8, 2010) ; M orr isv . W yet h, In c. , No

. 09- 0854, 2009 WL 4064103, at* 2–5 (W. D. La. Nov . 23, 2009) ; Le bla n cv . W yet h, In c. , N o. C iv.A .04- 0611, 2006 WL 2883030 , at *3–6 (W. D. La. O c t. 5, 2006) ; Ta r ve r v . W yet h, In c. , N o. C iv.A .3- 04- 2036, 2006 WL 1517546, at* 2–3 (W. D. La. Jan

. 26, 2006)

. In o ne notableexc ep tion, a L o ui s i anaC ourt of Ap p eal ss tated i n a fo otno te that a 6 ju d g m e n t is s u e d .” Marsei l l es Hom eow n ers C on d o. A ss’ n v. Fi d el i ty Nat. I

n s. C o. , 5 4 2 F .3d 1 0 5 3 , 1 0 5 8 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 8 ). Th e o nl y gr ound f

or am endi ng t he j udgm e n t under R ul e 5 9( e) t hat p o t e n t i a l l y a p p l i e s i n t h i s c a s e i s a n i n t e r v e n i n g c h a n g e i n t h e c o n t r o l l i n g l a w. Th e Loui si ana Produc t s Li abi l i t y Act ( “ LP LA ” ) pr ovi des t hat i t i s t he e xc l usi ve
rem edy f

or produ ct s l i abil i t y sui t s, sta t i n g t h at “ [ a] cl ai m an t m ay n ot rec over f rom a m an u fact u rer f or dam age cau sed by a p rodu ct on t h e basi s of an y t h eory of l i abi l i t y t hat i s not s et f or t h i n t hi s C hapt er . ” La. R ev. St at
. A nn. § 9 : 2800. 52. U nde r t he LPL A , r e c o ve r y i s no t a va i l ab l e a ga i ns t a m anufac t ur e r i f t he
m a n u fa c tu r e r d id n o t p r o d u c e th e o ffe n d in g p r o d u c t. S t ah lv. Novart i s Ph arm s. Cor p. , 2 8 3 F. 3 d 2 5 4 , 2 6 0

– 6 1 ( 5 t h Ci r . 2 0 0 2 ) ( s t a t i ng t ha t a n e l e m e nt o f a n LPLA
c l ai m i s “ t hat t he de fe nda nt i s a m anufac t ur e r o f t he pr o duc t ” )

. Thus , a c c o r di ng t o pre- Me ns i ngL ou i si an a c a s e l a w, De m ah y’ s c l ai m s agai n st W yeth an d S chw arz fai l b e c aus e t he y di d no t m anufac t ur e t he m e di ca tion s he a c t ual l y c o ns um e d. S ee als o W

ash i ngt on v. W

yet h , I n c. , N o. 3: 09-C V

- 013 43, 201 0 W L 450 351 , at *2 ( W

. D

. L a. F eb. 8, 201 0) ( f i n di n g t h at si m i l ar cl ai m s fai l u n der L P L A b ecau se d e fe n d a n t d id n o t m a n u fa c tu r e p r o d u c ts ); Possa v. E l i L i l l y & C o. , N o. 05- 1307- J J B -S C R , 2 0 0 6 W L 6 3 9 3 1 6 0 , a t *1 (M .D

. L a . M a y 1 0 , 2 0 0 6 ) ( sa m e ). 4N o. 11- 31073

negli gent mi s r ep r es entation c l aim brou ght aga i ns t a no n- manuf actu ri ng n ame brandi sn ot c o v e r e d b y t h e LPLA

. S t a n l e y v . W yet h, In c. , 991 So

. 2d31, 33 n .2 (La. Ap p . 1 C ir . 2008)

. Non et he less, th e co urtrej ect ed t hecl a im u nde r ge ne ra l to rt la won t he grou nds t ha tth ereis n o duty of c ar e owe d by n ame - br and man u f ac tu r er st o c on s u me r so f ge n ericp rodu c ts
. Id

. at 3 2

– 3 5
. Alt ho ugh w e n ee d no trea ch t heissue , th is ca sei l l u s t r a t es th e fa ct t ha t , unde r th is vi ew, evenif

th e LPLA di dn o t a p p ly, Dema hy’ stort cl aimswoul df ails i nc e Wyeth and Schwarzdi dn ot manuf actu r e th e gen ericp roduct givi ng ri s e toDemahy’scl aims , andth us owedDemahy no duty of c are. A numberof

f ed er al di s tric t c ourt d eci s i onsapp lyi ng Loui s i ana s tat e l aw h ave he l d th e same . Se e, e .g. , Joh ns on , 2010 WL 3271934 , at *1–3; Cra ig , 20 10 WL 2649545 , at *2–4; T

arv er , 20 06 WL 151 754 6, at* 2–3
. 7 I n de c i d i n g wh e t h e r a n a me n d me n t t o t h e j u d g me n t i s wa r r a n t e d , we
m us t t he r e f

o r e de t e rm i ne w he t he r t he de c i s i o n i n Me ns i nga l t e r e d Lo ui s i ana t ort l aw as i t ap pl i es t o t h e cl ai m s aga i n st W yeth an d S chw arz. D em ah y argu es t h at Lou i si an a cases hol di n g t h a th e rc l a i m s agai n st na m e- bran d m an u fact u rers
c a n n o t b e b r o u g h t h a v e b e e n o v e r r u le d b y t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t’s d e c is io n in Me ns i ng . A c c o r d in g to D e m a h y , Me ns i ngu n d erm i n ed th e l o gic of th e F ou rth Ci r c ui t ’ s de c i s i o n i n Fos t e r v . Am e r i c an Ho m e Pr o duc t s Cor p. , 2 9 F

. 3 d 16 5 ( 4 th Ci r . 1 99 4) , w hi c h s he a r gue s i s a f o unda t i o n o f

t he Lo ui s i ana de c i s i o ns r ul i ng t h at a part y can n ot be l i able f or da m ages resul t i n g f rom use or c on sum pti on of
a p r o d u c t t h e y d id n o t m a n u fa c tu r e . S ee, e. g. , S t an l ey v. W yet h , I n c. , 991 So. 2d 31, 34 ( La. A pp. 1 Ci r . 2008) ( favor abl y c i t i ng F ost era n d o th e r ca s e s ). I n F ost er , t he Fo ur t h Ci r c ui t , c o nstr u i ng M ar yl and l aw, r ej e c t e d t he
ar gum ent “ t hat a nam e br and m anufac t ure r ’ s st at em ent s r egar di ng i t s drug c an
s e r v e a s th e b a s is fo r lia b il it y fo r inju r ie s c a u s e d b y a n o t h e r m a n u fa c t u r e r ’s dru g. ” 29 F

. 3d at 170
. T h e F ost ercourt rej ect ed cl ai m s nearl y i den t i cal t o t h ose brou gh t i n t h i s sui t , h ol di n g t h at t h e du t y of care does n ot extend t o th ird p a r tie s . I

d. a t 1 71
. The c o ur t a l s o s t at e d i n di c t a t hat pl ai nt i f fs c o ul d s ue t he gen eri c m an u fact u rers w h o t h e court bel i eved w ere “ al so perm i t t ed t o a d d or
s t r e ngt he n war ni ngs a nd d e l e t e m i s l e ad i ng s t at e m e nt s o n l ab e l s , e ve n wi t ho ut p ri or F D A ap p rov a l

. ” I d. a t 17 0. I n Me ns i ng , h o w e v e r , th e S u p r e m e C o u r t h e ld t hat gener i c m anufac t ure r s c oul d not al t er t he l abel i ng on t hei r ow n a n d t hatN o. 11- 31073

8 fai l u re- t o- w arn cl ai m s agai n st gen eri c m an u fact u rers are preem pted on i m pos si bi l i t y gr ounds. 131 S. C t
. at 2577–7 8. Acc or di ng t o D em ahy , Fost er ’s ho l di ng t hat pl ai nt i f fs c anno t r e c o ve r ag ai ns t nam e - br and m anufac t ur e r s i s no lon g e r v a li d b e ca u se it w a s p re m ise d o n th e n o w -re jec te d n o tion th a t p la in tiffs coul d si m pl y recover f rom gen eri c m an u fact u rers . W e d o n o t v i e w Me ns i ngas ov er r ul i ng F ost erb e c aus e t he c o ur t i n F ost er d id n o t r e a c h its h o ld in g b y r e l y in g o n th e a b ility o f a p la in tiff to s u e g e n e r ic
m an u fact u rers . I n st ead , t h e court ’ s hol di n g w as based on i t s i n t erpret ati on of M a ry l a n d l a w an d th e con cl u sion th a t a n a m e-bra n d m a n u factu rer h a s n o d u ty
o f c a r e to c o n s u m e r s th a t a r e n o t u s in g th e m a n u fa c tu r e r ’ s p r o d u c t. F ost er , 29 F .3 d a t 1 7 1

– 7 2 ; se e a lso S m ith v. W y eth , 657 F. 3d 420, 423–24 ( 6t h C i r . 2011) ( f ol l ow i ng F

ost er ’ s con cl u sion tha t na m e-bra n d m a n u factu rers h a ve n o d u ty to gen eri c- bran d consu m ers)

. Th e F ost er court’ s opi n i on i n di ct a on t h e vi abil i t y of sui t s agai n st gen eri c m an u fa c t u r e rs w as proved w rong, bu t t h i s fact does not im p o s e o n n a m e -b r a n d m a n u fa c tu r e r s a d u ty o f c a r e to c u s to m e r s u s in g g e n e r ic pr o duc t s . Li ke w i s e , de c i s i o ns t hat r e l i e d up o n F ost erto cr e a te a s im ila r ru le in L o u is ia n a re m a in v a lid

. M ore ov er, ev en w ere w e of the view tha t Me ns i ngund e r m i ne d F ost er , t he i m pl i c i t r e ve r s al o f a Four t h Ci r c ui t de c i s i o n ab o ut M ar yl and l aw w o ul d ha ve no
e ffe c t o n L o u is ia n a la w . S ee Mo rr is , 2011 W L 4975317, at *1 –3 ( st at i ng t hat F ost er ’ s c o nt i nue d va l i di t y has no e f fe c t o n Lo ui s i ana l aw be c aus e “ any f i ndi ng th a t Me ns i ngup set s F ost er w o u ld a p p ly [o n ly] to M a ry la n d sta te law cla im s”). Th i s C our t i s bound by Loui si ana l aw and w e c annot c r eat e a new r em edy. S ol om on v. W

algre en C o. , 9 7 5 F

. 2 d 1 0 8 6 , 1 0 8 9 ( 5 t h C i r . 1 9 9 2 ) ( p e r c u r i a m) ( s t ati ng t hat t he c o ur t i s b o und t o a ppl y s t at e l aw “ as i t c ur r e nt l y e xi s t s [ ] a nd
m ay n ot cha n ge t h at l aw or ad opt i n n ovati ve t h eori es of recover y ” ). T h u s, be c aus e t he Supr e m e Cour t ’ s de c i s i o n i n Me ns i ngha d no e f fe c t o n Lo ui s i anaN o. 11- 31073

9 s t at e l aw, t he di s t r i c t c o ur t ’ s de ni alo f D e m ahy ’ s m o t i o n t o a m e nd t he j udg m e nt unde r Rul e 5 9( e ) w as no t a n a bus e o f di s c r e t i o n. 2
. C l a i m s A ga i n st A ctav i s ( G en eric D efen d a n t) Reg ar di ng t he di s t r i c t c o ur t ’ s di s m i s s al o f he r c l ai m s ag ai ns t Act av i s a nd i t s den i al of

her R u l e 59(e) m ot i on t o al t er or am en d j u dg m en t on those cl ai m s, D e m a h y a r g u e s th a t th e d is t r ic t c o u r t fa il e d t o c o r r e c t ly in t e r p r e t th is C o u r t ’s
m and at e di r e c t i ng di s m i s s al o f D e m ahy ’ s c l ai m s ag ai ns t Act av i s . The l aw of t he
c as e do c t r i ne pos i t s t hat or di nari l y “ an i ss ue o f fac t orl aw dec i ded o n appeal
m a y n ot b e ree xa m i n ed eit h er b y th e d i stri ct cou rt on rem a n d or b y th e a p p ell a te
cou rt on a su b seq u en t ap p ea l

. ” Un i t e d S t a t e s v . Ma t t h e ws , 312 F. 3d 652, 657 (5 th C ir

. 2 0 0 2 ) ( q u o ta tio n m a r k s o m itt e d ). T h e “m a n d a te ru le ” is a “s p e c ific
a p p l i ca ti on of th e g en era l do ctri n e of l a w of th e ca se.” Id

. It“pro vid es th a t a l o w e r c o ur t o n r e m and m us t i m pl e m e nt b o t h t h e lette r and t he s pi r i t o f t he appel l at e c our t ’ s m andat e and m ay not di sr egar d t he expl i c i t di r ec t i ves of t hat
cou rt. ” Id

. ( q u o t a tio n m a r k s o m itt e d ); s e e als o LU LA C v. Ci ty o f

Boe r ne , 675 F. 3d 433, 438 ( 5t h C i r . 2012) ( “ I t i s w el l es t abl i she d t hat ‘ an i nfer i or c our t has
n o p ow er or au th ority to de viate from the m a n d a t e i s su ed by an ap p ell a te
c our t
. ’ ” ( quot i ng Br ig g s v . Pe n n . R. R. , 3 3 4 U

. S

. 30 4 , 30 6 ( 1 9 4 8 )) ). T h e m a n d a te
ru l e a n d the l a w of th e ca se h a v e t h e sa m e ex cep ti on s: “( 1 ) [t ]he ev i d en ce a t a
s ubs e que nt t r i ali s s ubs t ant i al l y di f fe r e nt ; ( 2) t he r e ha s b e e n a n i nt e r ve ni ng
c h a n g e o f la w b y a co n tr o llin g a u th o r ity ; a n d (3 ) th e e a r lie r d e c is io n is cle a r ly
erro n eo u s a n d w ou l d w ork a m a n i fe s t in j u sti ce.” Id

. at 657
. I n t h ese ci rcum st an ces, a court can revi si t previ ou sl y- deci ded m att ers, or a dis t ri ct court
c a n e x c e e d a m a n d a te o n re m a n d

. S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. L ee , 358 F. 3d 315, 320 (5 th C ir. 2 0 0 4 ). D em ah y argu es t h at A ct avis ’ s app eal of t h e di st ri ct court ’ s den i al of A ct avis ’ s Ju l y 29, 200 8 m ot i on t o di sm i ss “ w as l i m i t ed on l y t o consi derati on of fai l ure t o w ar n cl ai m s t hat r equi r ed a m anufac t ure r t o pro vi de a w ar ni ng t hatN o. 11- 31073

Ac c or di ng to Dema hy, th os e “o thercl aims” ar e “( 1) f ailur e towarncl aimsth at di dn ot 5 r equir e th e manuf

actu r erto addto or dif f er its wa rningsf

rom th os e ap p earing in the l ab elof itsbr and- name c ounterp art; ( 2) cl aimsari s i ng u nd erth e LPLA f or m a n uf

actu ri ng d ef

ec t, des ig n defe ct, a nd b rea ch of e x press w a rra nt ies; (3 ) cl a ims unde r th e [L ou isia naUnfa ir T ra de Prac tic esAc t] ; and( 4) o thercl aimsari s i ng f rom tr aditionaltort c onc ep ts [ .] ” Id. at16–17. 10 w as di f fe r e nt o r i n ad di t i o n t o t he w ar ni ngs ap pe ar i ng i n t he l ab e l f o r t he b r and

nam e ver si on of t he drug. ” B r . of Pl

. - A ppel l ant Jul i e D em ahy at 16 ( Feb. 6, 2 012) [ her ei naf

t er A ppel l ant B r . ]

. She t her ef or e s t at es t hat her ot her c la im s

“ coul d n ot ha ve been encom pa ssed w i t h i n t h i s C ou rt’s d irect i on t o t h e l ow er
cou rt to en ter j u d gm en t i n fa vo r of A ctav i s. ” Id

. at 17 (em ph asi s and qu ot ati on
m arks om i t t ed). C on sequ en t l y, she argu es t h at “ t h e di st ri ct court com m i t t ed 5
rev ersible erro r w h en i t dism i sse d allof p l a i n ti ff’s c l a i m s u n d er it s i n terp reta ti on of th e m a n d a te. ” Id

. at 17. A s set ou t ab ov e in th e factu a l h i story , A ctav i s’ s Ju l y 2 9 , 20 0 8 m oti on to di sm i ss soug h t “ t o di sm i ss a ll of P l ai n t i f f ’ s cl ai m s assert ed aga i n st i t based on fede r al c onf

l i c t pr ee m pt i on pr i nci pl es . ” M ot
. t o D i sm i ss of D ef

. A c t avi s I nc. at 1 , D em ahy v. W

yet h I n c. , 201 1 W L 505 698 7 ( E

. D

. L a . O c t
. 1 4, 201 1) ( N o. 0 8 -36 1 6 ) (em p h a sis a d d ed ). T h e d i stri ct cou rt gra n ted A ctav i s’ s m oti on as to D e m a h y ’ s f

r a u d

- o n - t h e- F D A cl ai m , bu t den i ed i t as t o her fai l u re- t o- w arn cl ai m s. D em ahy v. W

yet h I n c. , 5 8 6 F

. S u p p . 2 d 6 4 2 , 6 6 2 (E .D

. L a . 2 0 0 8 ). T h e r e fo r e , it is cl ear t h at t h e di st ri ct court vi ew ed D em ah y as h aving assert ed on l y t w o t yp es of cl a i m s. T h i s C ou rt aff i rm ed the distri ct cou rt’ s d en i a l of D em a h y’ s m oti on to d is m is s th e fa ilu r e -to -w a r n cla im s , D e m ahy , 5 9 3 F

. 3 d a t 4 4 9 , b u t t h e S u p r e me C o u r t r e v e r s e d , fin d i n g t h a t s ta te -la w fa ilu r e -to -w a r n cla im s a g a in s t g e n e r ic d r u g m a n u fa c tu r e r s a r e p r e e m p te d b y fe d e r a l la w , Me ns i ng , 131 S. C t
. at 2581. T h i s C ou rt t h en va ca ted th e d i stri ct cou rt’ s ord er d en yin g i n p a rt th e m oti on to di sm i ss, an d i t rem an ded f or t h e en t ry of j u dg m en t i n favor of A ct avis

. Dem ahy
v. A ct avis , I

n c. , 650 F

. 3d 104 5, 104 6 ( 5th C i r . 201 1)

. A ccor di n gl y, t h e di st ri ct court gran t ed “j u d g m en t i n favor of D efen da n t , A ct avis , I n c. an d ag ai n stN o. 11- 31073

11 P la in tiff, J u li e D e m a h y , d ism iss in g th e P la in tiff ’ s su it w ith p r e j u d ice [. ]” D em ahy v. W

yet h , I n c. , N o. 08- 3616, 2011 W L 5505399, at *1 ( E

. D

. La. A ug. 30, 2 0 1 1 ). D em ah y argu es t h at t h e m an da t e add ress ed on ly h er fai l u re- t o- w arn
c la im s , a n d s t a t e s th a t “ [n ]o co u r t h a s co n s id e r e d th e a r g u m e n ts ra is e d in P la in tiff

’ s R u le 5 9 M o tio n [.]” A p p e lla n t B r . a t 2 5 (e m p h a s is o m itt e d ). W h ile it is tr u e th a t t h e m a n d a te a d d r e s s e d o n ly h e r fa ilu r e -to -w a r n cla im s , th a t is
s im p ly b e c a u s e , a t t h e tim e th is C o u r t is s u e d t h e m a n d a te , D e m a h y ’ s o n ly
r e m ai ni ng c l ai m s ha d be e n c har ac t e r i z e d by t he di s t r i c t c o ur t , t hi s Cour t , a nd t he Supr e m e Cour t a s fai l ur e - t o - w ar n c l ai m s . The m and at e pl ai nl y va c at e d t he di s t r i c t c o ur t ’ s o r de r al l o w i ng D e m ahy ’ s fai l ur e - t o - w ar n c l ai m s to g o fo r w ar d, and di r e c t e d t he di s t r i c t c o ur t t o g r ant j udg m e nt i n fav o r o f Ac t av i s . O nc e t he di st ri ct court ha d com pl i ed, an d en t ered j u dg m en t i n favor of A ct avis on t h ose
c l ai m s, D em ahy had no c l ai m s r em ai ni ng bec ause t he di st r i c t c our t had previ ou sl y gran t ed A ct avis ’ s m ot i on t o di sm i ss h er f rau d-on -t h e -F D A cl ai m s. W i t h no cl ai m s r em ai n i n g ot h er t h an her fai l u re- t o- w a r n c la im s, t h e di st ri ct
c o ur t c o ul d no t gr ant D e m ahy ’ s m o t i o n t o a l t e r o r a m e nd i t s j udg m e nt w i t ho ut bei n g i n derogati on of t h e m an da t e rul e. Th u s, becau se i t accuratel y i n t erpret ed
a n d ap p l i ed the m a n d a te, w e fi n d tha t t h e d i stri ct cou rt w a s corre ct i n bo th di s m i s s i ng D e m ahy ’ s c l ai m s a ga i ns t Ac t av i s a nd de nyi ng he r Rul e 5 9( e ) m o t i o n. S i n ce we h o l d t h a t t h e m a n d a t e wa s n o t i n e r r o r a n d t h e d i s t r i c t court
c o r r e c t ly fo ll o w e d t h e m a n d a t e , w e n e e d n o t r e a c h th e m e r it s o f D e m a h y ’s al l ege dl y non- fai l ure - t o- w ar n c l ai m s. N onet hel es s, ev en i f w e w er e t o f

i nd t hat t h ese c l ai m s survi ved t h e m an da t e, or i f w e w ere t o accept D em ah y’ s asser t i on t hat t he m and at e w as “ e r r o ne o us , ” M e m . o f Law i n Sup p. o f

Pl

. ’ s M o t
. t o Am e nd
a n d /o r A lte r J . a t 1 , D em ahy v. W yet h I n c. , 2011 W L 5056987 ( E

. D

. La. O c t
. 14,N o. 11- 31073

Wemay “r ec allorr ef

or m” a p r evi ousmand ate “to p r event i njus tic e.” Nat’l S ur. Corp. 6 v . Cha r lesC

a r te r &C o. , 621 F.2d739, 741 ( 5thC ir . 1980) ; s e ea ls o 5th C ir . R. 4 1
. 2 , (“O nce i s s u e da m an d at e w illn o tber e c all e de xc e p tt op r e ve n tin ju s t ic e . ” )

. If

th eC o u rtf

i n d sth at Dema hy has vi ab l e c l aimsth at survive M e ns i ng , and that it woul dwork injus tic e top r event thos e cl aimsf

rom being h eard , it c oul dr efo r m thep r evi ous ly-i s s ued mand ate to dir ec t th e di strict c ourt to hea r those cl a ims. See, e. g . , S tray ho rn v . W yet h Pharm

. , In c. , 2012 WL 3261377 , at *14 (W. D. Ten n . Au g. 7 8 , 2 0 1 2 ); M

e tz v . Wye t hLLC, N o. 8:10- CV

- 2658- T- 27AE P, 2012 WL 1058870 , at *2–7 (M .D. Fl a. M ar . 28, 2012) ; Mo retti v

. P LIVA, In c. , No . 2: 08- CV

- 003 96- JC M , 20 12 WL 628 502 , at* 5–6 (D. N ev . F eb . 2 7 , 2 0 1 2 ); Morris v. W yet h, In c. , N o . 09- 085 4, 201 2 WL 601 455 , at * 5 (W

. D. L a. Feb

. 2 3 , 2 0 1 2 ); Ba r t ol iv . APP Ph a r ms ., In c . ( InrePa mi d ron a t eProds . Li a b. Li t i g.) , 842 F. Su p p . 2d 479, 485 ( E .D. N .Y

. 2 0 12) ; G ross v . P fizer, In c. , 8 2 5 F

. Su pp. 2 d 6 5 4 , 6 5 8(D

. Md. 2012) ; De l V

a l le v . PLIV

A, In c. , No. B : 11- 113 , 20 11 WL 716 862 0, at* 5 ( S

. D. T e x. D e c . 21 , 2 0 1 1 ); F ulling to n v . P

LIVA, In c. , No. 4 :1 0 -CV- 0 0 2 3 6 -JL H, 2 0 1 1 WL 6 1 5 3 6 0 8 , a t *5 ( E.D . Ark. De c. 12 , 2 0 1 1 ). Se e, e .g. , A u coi nv . A mn e a l Ph a r ma ., LLC, N o. 11–1275, 2012 WL 2990697, at *9 ( E .D. 8 La. July 20, 2012) ; Jo hn sonv. T ev a P harm

. US

A, In c. , No . 2: 10- CV

- 404 , 20 12 WL 186 683 9, at *4 (W. D. La. M ay 21, 2012) ; Eck hard t v
. Q ualit est P harm

. In c. , N o. M

- 11

- 23 5, 2 01 2 WL 1511817 , at *7 ( S. D. Tex

. Ap r . 30, 2012) ; S tev ens v . Pliv a, In c. , No. 6:10

- 08 86 , 20 11 WL 6 2 2 4 5 6 9 , a t *2 (W.D . L a . Nov. 15 , 2 0 1 1 ). 12 2 0 1 1 ) ( N o . 0 8

- 3 6 1 6 ) , w e w o u l d s t i l l a f f i r m t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i n s o fa r a s t h e c l a i ms 6 are, at base, fai l u re- t o- w arn cl ai m s, w h i ch w ou l d be p reem pted i n l i gh t of Me ns i ng . B ased on D em ah y’ s com pl ai n t , t h e onl y cl ai m s t h at are argu ably not fai l ur e - t o - w ar n c l ai m s a r e t ho s e f o r br e ac h o f e xp r e s s w ar r ant y, R. at 5 24 , a nd fo r d e s ig n d e fe c t, R . a t 5 2 6
. S in c e h e r e x p r e s s w a r r a n ty cla im n a m e s o n ly W yeth, t h e on l y possi bl e n on - fai l u re- t o- w arn cl ai m D em ah y h as st ated aga i n st A ctav i s i s f

or d esign de fect. P ost- Me ns i ng , h o w ever, a seem i n g m aj ori t y of fe d e r a l d i s t r i c t c o u r t s t o c o n s i d e r o t h e r s t a t e - l a w t o r t c l a i m s h a v e f o u n d t h em t o be preem pted based on the fact t h at t h e pl ai n t i f fs’ cl ai m s are fai l u re- t o- w arn
c la im s u n d e r d iffe r e n t n a m e s . In a d d itio n , o th e r co u r ts h a v e s p e c ific a lly h e ld 7 pl ai n t i f fs’ desi gn defect cl ai m s aga i n st gen eri c m et ocl opram i de m an u fact u rers t o be pr e e m pt e d ba s e d o n Me ns i ng . T h e resul t i s t h at, w i t h few excepti on s, se e, 8
e .g ., C ooper v. W

yet h , I n c. , N o. 09- 929- JJB , 2012 W L 733846, at *1 ( M

. D

. La. M ar . 6 , 20 12 ) , c o ur t s ha ve he l d t hat s t at e - l aw t o r t c l ai m s a ga i ns t g e ne r i c dr ugN o. 11- 31073

13 m a n u fa c t u r e r s , i n c l u d i n g d e s i g n d e fe c t c l a i m s , a r e p r e e m p t e d a f t er Mens i ng . T h u s, al t h ou gh u n n ecess ary f or t h e di sposi t i on of t h i s case, w e are p e r s u a ded t hat D e m ahy ’ s de s i gn de fe c t c l ai m w o ul d b e pr e e m pt e d. CO NC L US I ON F or t h e f

oregoi n g reasons, w e A F F IR M t h e di str ic t c ou rt ’ s den i al of D em ah y’ s m ot i on t o set asi de j u dg m en t as t o A ct avis an d h er m ot i on f or r el i ef fr o m ju d g m e n t a s to W y e th a n d S c h w a r z . AF F I RMED.