In re DES cases, CV 91-3748

Decision Date13 April 1992
Docket NumberCV 91-4986.,No. CV 91-3748,CV 91-3748
Citation789 F. Supp. 552
PartiesIn re DES CASES. Deborah ASHLEY and Andrew Ashley, Marjorie Berger, Kathy Broaddus and Kerry Wayne Broaddus, Ann Danoff and Christopher Wang, Maureen Kent and Steven Kass, Nancy Kirsch and Steven Kirsch, Carol Rosenthal and Barry Rosenthal, Eva Zweifler and Vincent Alvarado, Gail Buckman and Michael Sklaroff, Tracy Wellman and Gary R. Scandell, Robin Edwards and Frank J. Edwards, Carrie Bristol and Zeke Bristol, Karen Hinton and David Hinton, Kyle Kouzes and Steve Kouzes, Jennifer Lynch, Barbara Bilder and Daniel Waldman, Linda Montgomery and Newman Montgomery, Plaintiffs, v. The ABBOTT LABORATORIES, American Pharmaceutical Co., Beecham Laboratories, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Boyle & Co. Pharmaceuticals, Burroughs-Wellcome & Co., Inc., Carnrick Laboratories, Inc., previously known as G.W. Carnrick Co., Inc., Chase Chemical Co., Chromalloy American Corp., Cooper Holdings, Inc., previously known as Cooper Laboratories, Dart Industries, Inc., previously known as Rexall Drug Co., Inc., Emons Industries, Inc., Key Pharmaceuticals, Kremers-Urban Co., now known as Mequon Co., Lannett Co., Inc., Eli Lilly and Co., Lincoln Laboratories, Inc., Malinckrodt, the S.E. Massengill Co., McNeilab, Inc., Merck & Co., Inc., Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Premo Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Inc., previously known as Lemmon Co. of N.J., Inc., Rite Aid Corp., Rorer Group, Inc., Rowell Laboratories, Inc., Schering Corp., Solvay Pharmaceuticals, Inc., formerly known as Reid-Provident Laboratories, Inc., Stanley Drug Products, Inc., a division of Sperti Drug Corp., E.R. Squibb & Sons, Inc., the Upjohn Company, West-Ward, Inc., now known as Industrial Way Liquidating Corp., White Laboratories Corp., Defendants. Angela SILVERI, Plaintiff, v. The ABBOTT LABORATORIES, American Pharmaceutical Co., Beecham Laboratories, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Boyle & Co. Pharmaceuticals, Burroughs-Wellcome & Co., Inc., Carnrick Laboratories, Inc., previously known as G.W. Carnrick Co., Inc., Chase Chemical Co., Chromalloy American Corp., Cooper Holdings, Inc., previously known as Cooper Laboratories, Dart Industries, Inc., previously known as Rexall Drug Co., Inc., the Dexter Corp., successor in interest of Invenex Laboratories, Emons Industries, Inc., Key Pharmaceuticals, Kremers-Urban Co., now known as Mequon Co., Lannett Co., Inc., Eli Lilly and Co., Lincoln Laboratories, Inc., Malinckrodt, the S.E. Massengill Co., McNeilab, Inc., Merck & Co., Inc., Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Premo Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Inc., previously known as Lemmon Co. of N.J., Inc., Rite Aid Corp., Rorer Group, Inc., Rowell Laboratories, Inc., Schering Corp., Solvay Pharmaceuticals, Inc., formerly known as Reid-Provident Laboratories, Inc., Stanley Drug Products, Inc., a division of SPERTI Drug Corp., E.R. Squibb & Sons, Inc., the Upjohn Company, West-Ward, Inc., now known as Industrial Way Liquidating Corp., White Laboratories Corp., Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Perry Weitz, Allan Zelikovic, Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C., New York City, for Ashley plaintiffs.

Leonard L. Finz, Stuart Finz, Gregory Green, Law Offices of Leonard L. Finz, P.C., New York City, for Angela Silveri.

Robert D. Wilson, Jr., Patterson, Belknap, Webb & Tyler, New York City, for Abbott Laboratories and McNeilab, Inc.

Edward Patrick Reardon, Staten Island, N.Y., for American Pharmaceutical.

John Budlong, Stafford Frey Cooper & Stewart, Seattle, Wash., Richard J. O'Keefe, O'Keefe, Kline & McCaffrey, White Plains, N.Y., for Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals.

Emmett J. Ganz, Law Offices of Emmett J. Ganz, Beverly Hills, Cal., Charles M. McCaghey, Ryan, Ryan, Johnson, Clear & DeLuca, Stamford, Conn., for Boyle & Co.

George I. Greene, Leslie McHugh, Lester Schwab Katz & Dwyer, New York City, for Burroughs-Wellcome & Co. and Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals.

Margaret M. Johnson, Martin, Clearwater & Bell, New York City, for Carnrick Laboratories.

Carro, Spanbock, Kaster & Cuiffo, New York City, for Chase Chemical.

Vincent J. Aceste, Sally A. Zullo, David E. Worby, P.C., White Plains, N.Y., for Cooper Laboratories (sued herein as Cooper Holdings).

A. Edward Grashof, Sheila Annmarie Moeller, Winthrop, Stimson, Putnam & Roberts, New York City, for Dart Industries and Rexall Drug Co.

Richard Bakalor, Quirk & Bakalor, P.C., New York City, for Dexter Corp., successor in interest of Invenex Laboratories.

Eric D. Statman, Anderson, Kill, Olick & Oshinsky, New York City, for Emons Industries.

Henry R. Simon, White Plains, N.Y., for Key Pharmaceuticals and West-Ward, n/k/a Indust. Way Liquidating Corp.

Mark G. Lionetti, Clark, Ladner, Fortenbaugh & Young, Philadelphia, Pa., for Kremers-Urban Co. n/k/a Mequon Co.

Solin, Breindel & Berger, Albany, N.Y., for Lannett Co.

Russel H. Beatie, Jr., Charna L. Gerstenhaber, Kenneth King, Brown & Wood, New York City, for Eli Lilly and Co.

John Sullivan, Michael Yoeli, Gordon & Silber, P.C., New York City, for Lincoln Laboratories.

Gwen Pollack, Laurence V. Senn, Jr., Mudge Rose Guthrie Alexander & Ferdon, New York City, for Malinckrodt.

Theodore V.H. Mayer, Hughes Hubbard & Reed, New York City, for Merck & Co.

Edward S. Weltman, Schneck Weltman Hashmall & Mischel, New York City, for Premo Pharmaceuticals Laboratories and Chromalloy American Corp.

David P. Schaffer, Kelly, Tobias & Turner, New York City, for Rhone-Poulenc Rorer Pharmaceuticals (sued herein as Rorer Group).

John M. Byrne, Elizabeth MacEwen, McMahon, Martine & Merritt, New York City, for Rite Aid Corp.

John C. Maloney, Jr., Sheryl Schwartz, Pitney, Hardin, Kipp & Szuch, Morristown, N.J., for SmithKline Beecham Corp. (sued herein as Beecham Laboratories and S.E. Massengill Co.).

Peter L. Herb, Gladstein & Isaac, New York City, for Solvay Pharmaceuticals, successor in interest of Reid-Provident Laboratories, and Rowell Laboratories.

Marc S. Klein, William B. Korman, Sills Cummis Zuckerman Radin Tischman Epstein & Gross, New York City, for E.R. Squibb & Sons.

Dorothy A. Phillips, Rivkin, Radler & Kremer, Uniondale, N.Y., for Stanley Drug Products.

David M. Covey, Sedgwick, Detert, Moran & Arnold, June A. O'Hea, Jay P. Mayesh, William A. Rome, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan, New York City, for The Upjohn Co.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Personal Jurisdiction

WEINSTEIN, District Judge:

                                              TABLE OF CONTENTS
                  I.   INTRODUCTION ................................................................. 557
                 II.   FACTS ........................................................................ 558
                       A. Background ................................................................ 558
                       B. Present Actions ........................................................... 559
                       C. Motions ................................................................... 559
                III.   NEW YORK SUBSTANTIVE LAW AND RULES AFFECTING SUBSTANTIVE
                       RIGHTS ....................................................................... 560
                       A.  History of New York Products Liability Law and Mass Tort Law
                           Generally ................................................................ 560
                       B.  New York DES Law ......................................................... 563
                       C.  Constitutionality of New York DES Law .................................... 565
                 IV.   CHOICE OF LAW ................................................................ 566
                       A.  Erie Doctrine ............................................................ 566
                       B.  New York Choice-of-Law Rules in Mass DES Torts ........................... 566
                       C.  Constitutionality of New York Choice-of-Law Rules in Mass DES Torts ...... 568
                  V.   PERSONAL JURISDICTION ........................................................ 569
                       A.  New York Jurisdictional Statutes ......................................... 569
                           1.  C.P.L.R. § 301 ......................................................... 569
                           2.  C.P.L.R. § 302 ......................................................... 569
                       B. Constitutionality of New York Statutes .................................... 573
                          1.  Current Due Process Doctrine and Problems Raised by Its Application
                              to Mass Torts ......................................................... 573
                          2.  Case Law in Non-Mass Torts ............................................ 577
                              a.  Pennoyer and Its Problems ......................................... 577
                              b.  Pennoyer to International Shoe: The Emergency of Fairness
                                  Inquiry ........................................................... 580
                              c.  International Shoe: Sovereignty, Fairness and Nexus Requirements .. 582
                          3.  Sovereignty and Fairness in Mass Torts ................................ 584
                          4.  Due Process Standard for Mass DES Torts ............................... 587
                  VI.  APPLICATION OF LAW TO FACTS .................................................. 589
                       A. Boehringer ................................................................ 589
                          1. Failure to State a Claim ............................................... 589
                          2. Personal Jurisdiction .................................................. 591
                       B. Boyle ..................................................................... 592
                          1. C.P.L.R. § 302(a)(3)(ii) ............................................... 592
                          2. Due Process ............................................................ 593
                 VII.  CONCLUSION ................................................................... 594
                

I. INTRODUCTION

This diversity case presents a classic illustration of why traditional limits on personal jurisdiction must be modified for mass torts. The torts alleged here...

To continue reading

Request your trial
56 cases
  • Service Employees Int'L Union v. Philip Morris, CIV.A 98-704 GK.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • December 21, 1999
    ...Litig., 887 F.Supp. 1447 (N.D.Ala. 1995); In re Joint E. and S. Dists. Asbestos Litig., 798 F.Supp. 925 (E.D.N.Y.1992); In re DES Cases, 789 F.Supp. 552 (E.D.N.Y.1992); In re Agent Orange Prod. Liab. Litig. MDL No. 381, 818 F.2d 187 (2nd Cir.1987). 11. United States v. American Tel. and Tel......
  • Boaz v. Boyle & Co.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • November 21, 1995
    ...594, 163 Cal.Rptr. 132, 607 P.2d 924, Bichler v. Eli Lilly & Co. (1982) 55 N.Y.2d 571, 450 N.Y.S.2d 776, 436 N.E.2d 182, In re DES Cases (E.D.N.Y.1992) 789 F.Supp. 552, and other places. We take it as established for purposes of the forum non conveniens and jurisdictional motions before the......
  • Kramer v. Showa Denko KK, 91 Civ. 0582.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • June 20, 1996
    ...65 N.Y.2d at 195, 480 N.E.2d 679, 491 N.Y.S.2d 90; see Hunter v. Derby Foods, Inc., 110 F.2d 970 (2d Cir. 1940); In re DES Cases, 789 F.Supp. 552, 567 (E.D.N.Y.1992) (quoting Schultz); Rubel v. Eli Lilly & Co., 681 F.Supp. 151, 153 (S.D.N.Y.1987). Plaintiffs allege, (Plaintiff's Memo at 334......
  • Gould Electronics Inc. v. U.S., 99-1893
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • June 19, 2000
    ...480 N.E.2d at 682; Morgan Guar. Trust Co. of N.Y. v. Garrett Corp., 625 F.Supp. 752, 754, 760 & n.11 (S.D.N.Y. 1986); In re DES Cases, 789 F.Supp. 552, 590 (E.D.N.Y. 1992). Gould, an Ohio corporation with its principal place of business in Ohio, is domiciled in Ohio. APU, a Pennsylvania cor......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT