IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
October 18, 2012
DAVID S. TATUM, PLAINTIFF,
TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS NORTH AMERICA, INC., TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS AMERICA, INC., TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS INTERNATIONAL, INC., TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS COMPANY LIMITED, TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC, TAKEDA AMERICA HOLDINGS, INC., TAKEDA GLOBAL RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT CENTER, INC., TAKEDA SAN DIEGO, INC., TAP PHARMACEUTICALS PRODUCTS, INC., ABBOTT LABORATORIES, INC., DOES 1 THROUGH 100 INCLUSIVE, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Jan E. DuBOIS, J.
AND NOW, this 18th day of October, 2012, upon consideration of Defendants' Takeda Pharmaceuticals International, Inc., Takeda Pharmaceuticals, LLC, Takeda Global Research & Development Center, Inc., Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc., Takeda Pharmaceuticals America, Inc. and Abbott Laboratories, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss Counts I, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, XI, XII, XIII, XIV, and Punitive Damage Claims of Plaintiffs' [sic] Amended Complaint (Document No. 12, filed June 20, 2012) ("Defendants' Motion to Dismiss") and Plaintiff David S. Tatum's Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Document No. 15, filed July 19, 2012), IT IS ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as follows:
1. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED with respect to Count I -- equitable tolling of applicable statute of limitations; Count IX -- strict product liability: defective design; Count XI -- strict product liability: failure to warn; and Count XIII -- unjust enrichment; and all such claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
2. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is DENIED with respect to the remaining claims: Count V -- negligent misrepresentation; Count VI -- breach of express warranty; Count VII -- breach of implied warranty for a particular purpose; Count VIII -- breach of implied warranty of merchantability; Count X -- strict product liability: manufacturing defect; Count XII -- fraudulent concealment; and Count XIV -- violations of Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law.
3. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is DENIED with respect to plaintiff's request for punitive damages.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a preliminary pretrial conference will be scheduled in due course.
BY THE COURT:
Hon. Jan E. DuBois
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.