Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In re Avandia Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

April 16, 2015

IN RE: AVANDIA MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION MDL No. 07-MD-01871
v.
SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORPORATION d/b/a GLAXOSMITHKLINE THIS DOCUMENT APPLIES TO STACI LAURINO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated

MEMORANDUM OPINION

CYNTHIA M. RUFE, District Judge.

Plaintiff is a former user of the prescription diabetes drug Avandia, who does not sue on the grounds that she has been physically injured as a result of taking Avandia; instead she solely alleges a violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act ("MMPA"), which prohibits deceptive practices.[1] The case is brought on behalf of a purported class of similarly situated individuals, but no class has been certified. Defendant, GlaxoSmithKline LLC ("GSK"), has moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint, arguing that Plaintiff lacks standing and has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

I. BACKGROUND

The Amended Complaint[2] describes, at some length, GSK's alleged failure to adequately warn of and disclose medical risks of Avandia use. As is relevant to the motion to dismiss, the Amended Complaint alleges the following:

118. Thus, despite notice of the dangerous propensities associated with Avandia, GSK engaged in misrepresentations, and failed to adequately advise consumers and medical providers of the risks of Avandia, including but not limited to the increased risk of heart attacks and deaths. Furthermore, the company omitted material facts concerning Avandia's risk factors, even though it knew or reasonably should have known those facts. GSK also promoted Avandia's efficacy when in fact, Avandia is no more effective than other drugs.
119. Staci Laurino purchased and used Avandia as early as 2007, which had been prescribed for her by a licensed physician, and she used it as prescribed.
120. GSK misrepresented, concealed, suppressed and/or omitted material facts concerning Avandia and the fact that the drug increased the likelihood of cardiovascular disease.
121. Contrary to GSK's advertising and promotion, Avandia is not more efficacious than other treatments for Type II diabetes and significantly increases the risk of heart-related diseases including heart attack and stroke.
122. The actual value of Avandia was/is significantly less than the value of Avandia as represented by GSK, and thus, Plaintiff and other consumers suffered ascertainable loss when they purchased Avandia.[3]

Plaintiff does not allege when or for how long she took Avandia or how much she paid for it; nor does she identify the prescribing physician or allege any facts regarding her medical treatment. Plaintiff also does not allege that Avandia was ineffective in treating her Type II diabetes, whether she took or would have taken another drug instead of Avandia, or the cost of such other drugs. Plaintiff seeks damages "equal to the difference between the actual value of Avandia and the value of Avandia had it been as represented by Defendant."[4]

II. LEGAL STANDARDS

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) allows a party to move for dismissal of any claim wherein the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. When considering a 12(b)(1) motion, the court "review[s] only whether the allegations on the face of the complaint, taken as true, allege sufficient facts to invoke the jurisdiction of the district court."[5] To establish Article III standing, "a plaintiff must show (1) an injury in fact, ' i.e., an actual or imminently threatened injury that is concrete and particularized' to the plaintiff; (2) causation, i.e., traceability of the injury to the actions of the defendant; and (3) redressability of the injury by a favorable decision by the Court."[6] In the context of a motion to dismiss, "the injury-in-fact element is not Mount Everest. The contours of the injury-in-fact requirement, while not precisely defined, are very generous, requiring only that claimant allege some specific, identifiable trifle of injury."[7] If the complaint fails to satisfy these requirements, "a federal court does not have subject matter jurisdiction... [and] the claim[s] must be dismissed."[8] In determining whether the allegations of the complaint confer standing upon the plaintiff, "courts apply the standard of reviewing a complaint pursuant to a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim."[9]

Dismissal of a complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted is appropriate where a plaintiff's "plain statement" does not possess enough substance to show that plaintiff is entitled to relief.[10] The court must consider those facts alleged in the complaint, accepting the allegations as true and drawing all logical inferences in favor of the non-moving party.[11] Courts are not bound to accept as true legal conclusions couched as factual allegations.[12] Something more than a mere possibility of a claim must be alleged; the plaintiff must allege "enough facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face."[13] The complaint must set forth direct or inferential allegations with regard to all the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.