Utts v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.
Decision Date | 23 December 2016 |
Docket Number | 16cv5668(DLC) |
Citation | 226 F.Supp.3d 166 |
Parties | Charlie UTTS and Ciara Utts, Plaintiffs, v. BRISTOL–MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY and Pfizer Inc., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
For Charlie Utts and Ciara Utts: Nicholas Farnolo, Napoli Shkolnik PLLC, 400 Broadhollow Road, Melville, New York 11747.
For Bristol–Myers Squibb Company and Pfizer Inc.: Loren H. Brown, Cara D. Edwards, DLA Piper LLP (US), 1251 Avenue of the Americas, New York, New York 10020.
Plaintiffs Charlie and Ciara Utts bring this product liability lawsuit against defendants Bristol–Myers Squibb Company ("BMS") and Pfizer Inc. ("Pfizer"), alleging that Mr. Utts suffered severe internal bleeding caused by taking Eliquis, a prescription drug manufactured, marketed, and distributed by the defendants. The defendants have moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 9(b). For the following reasons, the defendants' motion is largely granted, with leave to amend most of the dismissed claims.
The following facts are drawn from the complaint and documents integral to it, including the Eliquis label approved by the Federal Drug Administration ("FDA"). The facts are construed in favor of the plaintiffs. See Keiler v. Harlequin Enters. Ltd. , 751 F.3d 64, 68 (2d Cir. 2014).
Plaintiffs Charlie and Ciara Utts are both residents of California. Mr. Utts was diagnosed with atrial fibrillation1
some time before July 2014 and prescribed Eliquis by his doctor. Mr. Utts suffered severe internal bleeding after taking Eliquis.
Eliquis—the brand name of the prescription medicine apixaban—is an anticoagulant, blood-thinning medication used to reduce the risk of stroke
and systemic embolism in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. Unlike other anticoagulant medications such as warfarin, Eliquis does not have a known antidote or reversal agent. It does, however, have certain marked advantages over other anticoagulant medications. For example, Eliquis does not require periodic blood testing, nor does it impose dietary restrictions on its users.
The FDA approved Eliquis for sale and marketing in the United States in 2012. Pursuant to federal law, all applications for FDA approval of new drugs must include a description of the clinical investigations of the drug, including an analysis of each clinical pharmacology study of the drug and each controlled clinical study pertinent to a proposed use of the drug. See 21 C.F.R. § 314.50(d)(5). In accordance with this requirement, the defendants submitted the results of the international clinical trials known as ARISTOTLE. The plaintiffs allege several deficiencies with the ARISTOTLE study, including the defendants' use of "incompetent and untrustworthy agents in China to conduct the ARISTOTLE study." The plaintiffs further contend that the defendants concealed several side effects experienced by study participants.2
While the defendants' application was pending before the FDA, Dr. Thomas Marcinak, an FDA employee appointed to review the Eliquis application, recommended that the proposed Eliquis label discuss the quality control problems associated with the ARISTOTLE study. In response to concerns about the rigor of the ARISTOTLE study, the defendants stated that they were submitting additional data to the FDA for its consideration.
At the time Mr. Utts was prescribed Eliquis, the label contained several warnings about the risk of bleeding. For example, the "Warnings and Precautions" section of the label provides, under a subheading entitled "Bleeding," that:
Finally, the Eliquis Medication Guide—a paper insert in all prescription medicine packages—instructs patients that (Emphasis in original.)
The plaintiffs filed their complaint on July 15, 2016. The complaint asserts twelve causes of action against the defendants: (1) product liability—design defect; (2) product liability—manufacturing defect; (3) product liability—failure to warn; (4) product liability—strict liability; (5) negligence; (6) breach of express warranty; (7) breach of implied warranties; (8) fraudulent concealment; (9) negligent misrepresentation; (10) fraud; (11) violation of consumer protection laws; and (12) loss of consortium on behalf of Mrs. Utts.
On October 5, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(6) and 9(b). On October 13, the defendants moved the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML") to transfer and coordinate 34 actions pending in 13 different district courts, including the instant action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407. On October 21, the parties in the instant action filed a letter requesting that the Honorable Lewis A. Kaplan stay all proceedings pending resolution of the JPML petition. The request to enter a stay was denied on October 28.
On November 21, the case was reassigned to this Court as related to 16 other product liability cases concerning the medication Eliquis that have been filed in this district.3 That same day, this Court issued an Order instructing the parties in this case and all related actions to confer and identify one motion that is appropriate for early resolution. The November 21 Order also explained that the initiation of discovery would turn on whether or not the Court denies the selected motion to dismiss. On December 2, the parties identified the present motion to dismiss as the one motion appropriate for early resolution. The motion to dismiss became fully submitted on December 5.
When deciding a motion to dismiss, a court must "accept all allegations in the complaint as true and draw all inferences in the non-moving party's favor." LaFaro v. New York Cardiothoracic Grp., PLLC , 570 F.3d 471, 475 (2d Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). "To survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must allege sufficient facts which, taken as true, state a plausible claim for relief." Keiler , 751 F.3d at 68 ; Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) . A claim has facial plausibility when "the factual content" of the complaint "allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Tongue v. Sanofi , 816 F.3d 199, 209 (2d Cir. 2016) (citation omitted). "Where a complaint pleads facts that are merely consistent with a defendant's liability, it stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief." Iqbal , 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (citation omitted). In sum, "a plaintiff's obligation to provide the grounds of his entitlement to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) (citation omitted).
To satisfy the requirements of Rule 9(b), the complaint must: (1) detail the events giving rise to the fraud, such as the statement/omission that is alleged to be fraudulent, the identity of the speaker, the location of the fraud, and the reason the statement is fraudulent; and (2) allege facts "that give rise to a strong inference of fraudulent intent." Loreley Fin. (Jersey) No. 3 Ltd. v. Wells Fargo Sec., LLC , 797 F.3d 160, 171 (2d Cir. 2015) (citation omitted).
In deciding a motion to dismiss, the court considers "any written instrument attached to the complaint as an exhibit or any statements or documents incorporated in it by reference," Stratte–McClure v. Morgan Stanley , 776 F.3d 94, 100 (2d Cir. 2015) (citation omitted), as well as "documents upon which the complaint relies and which are integral to the complaint." Subaru Distribs. Corp. v. Subaru of Am., Inc. , 425 F.3d 119, 122 (2d Cir. 2005). The Eliquis label and package insert are integral to the complaint.
A district court, sitting in diversity, applies the choice of law rules of the forum state—in this case, New York law. Alphonse Hotel Corp. v. Tran , 828 F.3d 146, 152 (2d Cir. 2016). Under New York choice of law rules, "the first step in any case presenting...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Zantac (Ranitidine) Prods. Liab. Litig.
...before they sought approval, which may never have been granted"), aff'd , 903 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2018) ; Utts v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. , 226 F. Supp. 3d 166, 185-86 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) (concluding that a negligent design-defect claim was pre-empted where plaintiffs asserted "that the defendant......
-
Utts v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., 16cv5668(DLC).
...whether or not the Court denies the selected motions to dismiss. On December 2, the parties agreed to proceed with a motion to dismiss in the Utts action.On December 23, the Court issued its Opinion in Utts, granting in part the October 5 motion to dismiss and giving the plaintiffs leave to......
-
Gustavsen v. Alcon Labs., Inc.
...was indistinguishable to the "stop-selling" rationale rejected in Bartlett. See id.; see also Utts v. Bristol–Myers Squibb Co., 226 F.Supp.3d 166, 185–86 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 23, 2016) ; Brazil v. Janssen Research & Development LLC, 196 F.Supp.3d 1351, 1364 (N.D. Ga. 2016).Plaintiffs' supplementa......
-
MacSwan v. Merck & Co.
...Mfg. Co. , 59 N.Y.2d 102, 109, 463 N.Y.S.2d 398, 450 N.E.2d 204 (1983) (emphasis supplied).4 Compare Utts v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. , 226 F. Supp. 3d 166, 178 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) ("[T]his case law, read holistically, indicates that federal law preempts all pre-FDA approval failure to warn and......
-
Federal Preemption of State Attempts To Ban FDA-Approved Abortion Drugs After Dobbs
...formulation of [their drug], such claims have been explicitly repudiated by the Supreme Court.” Utts v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., 226 F. Supp.3d 166, 186 (S.D.N.Y. 2016). Likewise, in Silver v. Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 2021 WL 4472857 (D.S.C. Sept. 30, 2021), the plaintiff’s ......