Braune v. Abbott Laboratories, No. 95-CV-0209 (JBW)
| Court | United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of New York) |
| Citation | 895 F. Supp. 530 |
| Decision Date | 16 August 1995 |
| Parties | Ellen BRAUNE, Juli Ann Harnett, Elizabeth Rougny, and Kathryn Sullivan Lincoln, Plaintiffs, v. The ABBOTT LABORATORIES, Boyle & Co. Pharmaceuticals, Burroughs-Wellcome & Co., Inc., Carnrick Laboratories, Inc., Chase Chemical Co., Chromally American Corporation, Dart Industries, Inc., p/k/a Rexall Drug Co., Inc., Eli Lilly & Co., Kremers-Urban Co., n/k/a Mequon Co., Lincoln Laboratories, Inc., Mallincrodt Inc., McNeilab, Inc., S.E. Massengill, a/k/a Beechum, Inc., Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Premo Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Inc., p/k/a Lemmon Co. of N.J., Inc., Rite-Aid Corporation, Rhone-Poulenc Rorer Pharmaceuticals, Inc., p/k/a William H. Rorer, Inc., Rowell Laboratories, Inc., Schering Group, Solvay Pharmaceuticals, Inc., formerly known as Reid-Provident Laboratories, Inc., Stanley Drug Products Inc., A Division of Sperti Drug Corporation, E.R. Squibb & Sons, Inc., The Upjohn Company, and West-Ward, Inc., n/k/a Industrial Way Liquidating Corp., Defendants. Barbara Beth JELLOW, Lynn Yarnall, Kerry Ellen Zahn, Katie King Larson, Lori Beth Minor, Susan Allsopp, and Eve Marie Colello-Moltzen, Plaintiffs, v. The ABBOTT LABORATORIES, Burroughs-Wellcome & Co., Inc., Carnrick Laboratories, Inc., Chase Chemical Co., Chromally American Corporation, Dart Industries, Inc., p/k/a Rexall Drug Co., Inc., Eli Lilly & Co., Emons Industries, Inc., p/k/a Amfre Grant, Kremers-Urban Co., n/k/a Mequon Co., Lannett Co., Inc., Lincoln Laboratories, Inc., MeNeilab, Inc., S.E. Massengill, a/k/a Beechum, Inc., Merck & Co., Inc., Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Premo Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Inc., p/k/a Lemmon Co. of N.J., Inc., Rite-Aid Corporation, Rhone-Poulenc Rorer Pharmaceuticals, Inc., p/k/a William H. Rorer, Inc., Rowell Laboratories, Inc., Schering Corporation, Solvay Pharmaceuticals, Inc., p/k/a Reid-Provident Laboratories, Inc., Stanley Drug Products Inc., A Division of Sperti Drug Corporation, E.R. Squibb & Sons, Inc., The Upjohn Company, and West-Ward, Inc., n/k/a The Industrial Way Liquidating Corp., Defendants. Mary SERRI, Tina Lee Babb, Laura Cassell, Michele Friedman, Cindy Nadelbach, Karen Proodian, Regina Sica, and Paige White, Plaintiffs, v. The ABBOTT LABORATORIES, Boyle & Co. Pharmaceuticals, Burroughs-Wellcome & Co., Inc., Carnrick Laboratories, Inc., Chromally American Corporation, Dart Industries, Inc., p/k/a Rexall Drug Co., Inc., Eli Lilly & Co., Kremers-Urban Co., n/k/a Mequon Co., Lannett Co., Inc., McNeilab, Inc., Mallincrodt, Inc., S.E. Massengill, n/k/a SmithKline Beechum, Corp., Merck & Co., Inc., Premo Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Inc., p/k/a Lemmon Co. of N.J., Inc., Rhone-Poulenc Rorer Pharmaceuticals, Inc., p/k/a William H. Rorer, Inc., Rowell Laboratories, Inc., Schering Corporation, E.R. Squibb & Sons, Inc., The Upjohn Company, and West-Ward, Inc., n/k/a The Industrial Way Liquidating Corp., Defendants. |
| Docket Number | 95-CV-0506 (JBW) and 95-CV-1230 (JBW).,No. 95-CV-0209 (JBW) |
895 F. Supp. 530
Ellen BRAUNE, Juli Ann Harnett, Elizabeth Rougny, and Kathryn Sullivan Lincoln, Plaintiffs,
v.
The ABBOTT LABORATORIES, Boyle & Co. Pharmaceuticals, Burroughs-Wellcome & Co., Inc., Carnrick Laboratories, Inc., Chase Chemical Co., Chromally American Corporation, Dart Industries, Inc., p/k/a Rexall Drug Co., Inc., Eli Lilly & Co., Kremers-Urban Co., n/k/a Mequon Co., Lincoln Laboratories, Inc., Mallincrodt Inc., McNeilab, Inc., S.E. Massengill, a/k/a Beechum, Inc., Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Premo Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Inc., p/k/a Lemmon Co. of N.J., Inc., Rite-Aid Corporation, Rhone-Poulenc Rorer Pharmaceuticals, Inc., p/k/a William H. Rorer, Inc., Rowell Laboratories, Inc., Schering Group, Solvay Pharmaceuticals, Inc., formerly known as Reid-Provident
Barbara Beth JELLOW, Lynn Yarnall, Kerry Ellen Zahn, Katie King Larson, Lori Beth Minor, Susan Allsopp, and Eve Marie Colello-Moltzen, Plaintiffs,
v.
The ABBOTT LABORATORIES, Burroughs-Wellcome & Co., Inc., Carnrick Laboratories, Inc., Chase Chemical Co., Chromally American Corporation, Dart Industries, Inc., p/k/a Rexall Drug Co., Inc., Eli Lilly & Co., Emons Industries, Inc., p/k/a Amfre Grant, Kremers-Urban Co., n/k/a Mequon Co., Lannett Co., Inc., Lincoln Laboratories, Inc., MeNeilab, Inc., S.E. Massengill, a/k/a Beechum, Inc., Merck & Co., Inc., Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Premo Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Inc., p/k/a Lemmon Co. of N.J., Inc., Rite-Aid Corporation, Rhone-Poulenc Rorer Pharmaceuticals, Inc., p/k/a William H. Rorer, Inc., Rowell Laboratories, Inc., Schering Corporation, Solvay Pharmaceuticals, Inc., p/k/a Reid-Provident Laboratories, Inc., Stanley Drug Products Inc., A Division of Sperti Drug Corporation, E.R. Squibb & Sons, Inc., The Upjohn Company, and West-Ward, Inc., n/k/a The Industrial Way Liquidating Corp., Defendants.
Mary SERRI, Tina Lee Babb, Laura Cassell, Michele Friedman, Cindy Nadelbach, Karen Proodian, Regina Sica, and Paige White, Plaintiffs,
v.
The ABBOTT LABORATORIES, Boyle & Co. Pharmaceuticals, Burroughs-Wellcome & Co., Inc., Carnrick Laboratories, Inc., Chromally American Corporation, Dart Industries, Inc., p/k/a Rexall Drug Co., Inc., Eli Lilly & Co., Kremers-Urban Co., n/k/a Mequon Co., Lannett Co., Inc., McNeilab, Inc., Mallincrodt, Inc., S.E. Massengill, n/k/a SmithKline Beechum, Corp., Merck & Co., Inc., Premo Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Inc., p/k/a Lemmon Co. of N.J., Inc., Rhone-Poulenc Rorer Pharmaceuticals, Inc., p/k/a William H. Rorer, Inc., Rowell Laboratories, Inc., Schering Corporation, E.R. Squibb & Sons, Inc., The Upjohn Company, and West-Ward, Inc., n/k/a The Industrial Way Liquidating Corp., Defendants
Nos. 95-CV-0209 (JBW), 95-CV-0506 (JBW) and 95-CV-1230 (JBW).
United States District Court, E.D. New York.
August 16, 1995.
Patterson, Belknap, Webb & Tyler, New York City by Robert D. Wilson, Jr., for Abbott Laboratories and McNeilab, Inc.
Lester Schwab Katz & Dwyer, New York City by Catherine Feehan, for Burroughs-Wellcome & Co., Inc., Carnrick Laboratories, Inc. and Merrell Dow Pharmaceutical, Inc.
Schneck, Weltman, Hasmall & Mischel, LLP, New York City by Leonard F. Lesser, Edward S. Weltman, for Chromally American Corp. and Premo Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Inc., p/k/a Lemmon Co. of N.J., Inc.
Winthrop, Stimson, Putnam & Roberts, New York City by A. Edward Grashof, for Dart Industries Inc., p/k/a Rexall Drug Co.
Beatie, King & Abate, New York City by Samuel J. Abate, Russell H. Beatie, Charna L. Gerstenhaber, Susan Kelty Law, for Eli Lilly & Co.
Anderson Kill Olick & Oshinsky, P.C., New York City by Eric D. Statman, for Emons Industries, Inc., a/k/a Amfre Grant.
Cooper, Kardaras & Scharf, New York City by Lori S. Evenchick, for Kremers-Urban Co., n/k/a Mequon Co.
Jaffe, Raitt, Heuer & Weiss, Detroit, MI, for Lannett Co., Inc.
Mudge, Rose, Guthrie, Alexander & Ferdon, New York City, for Mallincrodt Inc.
Pitney Hardin Kipp & Szuch, Florham Park, NJ by Joseph E. Hopkins, for S.E. Massengill, n/k/a SmithKline Beechum Corp.
Hughes Hubbard & Reed, New York City by Robb William Patryk, for Merck Co., Inc.
Law Offices of R. Patrick White, New York City by Bruce D. Margolin, for Rhone-Poulenc Rorer Pharmaceuticals, Inc., p/k/a William H. Rorer, Inc.
Gladstein & Isaac, New York City by Robert L. Boydstun, M. Leeann Irvin, for Rowell Laboratories, Inc.
Law Offices of Henry R. Simon, White Plains, NY by Linda Trummer Napolitano, for Schering Corp. and West-Ward, Inc., n/k/a Indus. Way Liquidating Corp.
Sills, Cummis, Zuckerman, Radin, Tischman, Epstein & Gross, P.A., New York City by Marc S. Klein, Bennet Susser, for E.R. Squibb & Sons, Inc.
Sedgwick, Detert, Moran & Arnold, New York City by Richard Adam Schioppo, Randi Faith Seffinger, Rivkin, Radler & Kremer, Uniondale, NY by Frank J. Giliberti, for Upjohn Co.
AMENDED MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
WEINSTEIN, Senior District Judge.
Table of Contents
I. FACTS .......................................................... 537
A. Babb ........................................................ 537
B. Cassell ..................................................... 538
C. Colello-Moltzen ............................................. 538
D. Friedman .................................................... 539
E. Harnett ..................................................... 539
F. Larson ...................................................... 539
G. Minor ....................................................... 540
H. White ....................................................... 541
I. Zahn ........................................................ 541
II. LAW APPLICABLE TO STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS-BASED CHALLENGES ..... 541
A. New York Statute of Limitations and Discovery Rule .......... 542
1. Statute.................................................... 542
2. Awareness that "injury" was due to human cause ............ 543
a. Language of the statute ................................ 543
b. Precedents ............................................. 545
c. Comparison of sections 214-c(2) and 214-c(4) ........... 546
d. Legislative design ..................................... 547
e. Policy ................................................. 551
f. Likely New York Court of Appeals' construction ......... 553
895 F. Supp. 537B. Standard of Constructive Knowledge .................................................. 554 C. Two-Injury Rule ..................................................................... 555 D. Jury Resolution of Factual Disputes ................................................. 556 E. Suits by Nonresidents ............................................................... 557 1. Borrowing statute ................................................................ 557 a. Applicability to section 214-c ................................................ 557 b. Date and place of accrual ..................................................... 558 i. Place of encounter with harmful instrumentality ........................... 559 ii. Place where injury is perceived ........................................... 559 iii. Place where viable cause of action becomes possible ....................... 560 iv. Place of "last event" ..................................................... 561 v. Place where injury was manifested ......................................... 562 vi. Possible applicability of "interest" analysis once New York is ruled out as accrual jurisdiction ...................................................... 565 vii. Place most favorable to defendant ......................................... 566 c. Jury resolution of factual disputes ........................................... 566 2. Other states' statutes of limitations ............................................ 566 a. Harnett ....................................................................... 567 b. Larson ........................................................................ 567 III. APPLICATION OF STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS LAW TO FACTS...................................... 567 A. Babb ................................................................................ 567 B. Cassell ............................................................................. 567 C. Colello-Moltzen ..................................................................... 568 D. Friedman ............................................................................ 568 E. Harnett ............................................................................. 568 F. Larson .............................................................................. 568 G. Zahn ................................................................................ 568 IV. SUBSTANTIVE CHALLENGES-HARNETT, MINOR AND WHITE ........................................ 569 V. CONCLUSION ............................................................................. 569
Defendants, formerly producers for use in pregnancy of diethylstilbestrol (DES), seek summary judgment against nine of nineteen plaintiffs in three separate actions. They assert statute of limitations defenses and the applicability, under choice-of-law principles, of substantive law that arguably precludes plaintiffs' theories of liability.
As indicated in the body of this memorandum, under New York law the statute of limitations is triggered when a plaintiff either discovered or reasonably should have...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Royal Ins. Co. of America v. Ru-Val Elec. Corp., No. CV-92-4911.
...impact, or the time the act complained of produces resultant consequences....") (citations omitted); cf. Braune v. Abbott Laboratories, 895 F.Supp. 530 (E.D.N.Y.1995) (discovery rule); N.Y.C.P.L.R. § 214-c (1990) (discovery In building construction cases where the claim is simultaneously fo......
-
Grisham v. Philip Morris U.S.A., Inc., No. S132772.
...rule also has been applied in other toxic exposure cases involving latent injuries. (See Braune v. Abbott Laboratories (E.D.N.Y.1995) 895 F.Supp. 530, 567-568; Colby v. E.R. Squibb & Sons, Inc. (D.Kan. 1984) 589 F.Supp. 714,...
-
State v. Lombardo Bros. Mason Contractors, No. X01-UWY-CV-08-501068S.
...this rule for personal injury mass toxic suits." J. Mack, supra, 73 Def. Couns. J. at 182; see, e.g., Braune v. Abbott Laboratories, 895 F.Supp. 530, 549-50 "The adoption of the discovery rule reflects a recognition of the harsh effect of a statute of limitations on a plaintiff who never ev......
-
Suffolk Cnty. Water Auth. v. Dow Chem. Co.
...Baum Co., 360 Fed.Appx. 251, 253 n. 1). The two-injury rule permits the splitting of one cause of action ( see Braune v. Abbott Lab., 895 F.Supp. 530, 556 [E.D.N.Y.] ), or recognizes the accrual of a new cause of action ( see Bimbo v. Chromalloy Am. Corp., 226 A.D.2d 812, 815, 640 N.Y.S.2d ......
-
Royal Ins. Co. of America v. Ru-Val Elec. Corp., No. CV-92-4911.
...impact, or the time the act complained of produces resultant consequences....") (citations omitted); cf. Braune v. Abbott Laboratories, 895 F.Supp. 530 (E.D.N.Y.1995) (discovery rule); N.Y.C.P.L.R. § 214-c (1990) (discovery In building construction cases where the claim is simultaneously fo......
-
Grisham v. Philip Morris U.S.A., Inc., No. S132772.
...rule also has been applied in other toxic exposure cases involving latent injuries. (See Braune v. Abbott Laboratories (E.D.N.Y.1995) 895 F.Supp. 530, 567-568; Colby v. E.R. Squibb & Sons, Inc. (D.Kan. 1984) 589 F.Supp. 714,...
-
State v. Lombardo Bros. Mason Contractors, No. X01-UWY-CV-08-501068S.
...this rule for personal injury mass toxic suits." J. Mack, supra, 73 Def. Couns. J. at 182; see, e.g., Braune v. Abbott Laboratories, 895 F.Supp. 530, 549-50 "The adoption of the discovery rule reflects a recognition of the harsh effect of a statute of limitations on a plaintiff who never ev......
-
Suffolk Cnty. Water Auth. v. Dow Chem. Co.
...Baum Co., 360 Fed.Appx. 251, 253 n. 1). The two-injury rule permits the splitting of one cause of action ( see Braune v. Abbott Lab., 895 F.Supp. 530, 556 [E.D.N.Y.] ), or recognizes the accrual of a new cause of action ( see Bimbo v. Chromalloy Am. Corp., 226 A.D.2d 812, 815, 640 N.Y.S.2d ......