Cases

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER WILLIAM KEITH WATKINS, Chief Judge. This action is one in a long line of lawsuits alleging inadequate and illegal conduct on the part of the various pharmaceutical companies that “innovated, made, promoted, and sold” the prescription drug Reglan® or its generic counterpart, Meto-clopramide (“MCP”). (Doc. # 142,' at 1.) Plaintiffs Danny and Vicki Weeks contend that M

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER W. KEITH WATKINS, Chief Judge. This lawsuit is one in a long line of actions alleging inadequate and illegal conduct on the part of the various pharmaceutical companies that “innovated, made, promoted, and sold” the prescription drug Reglan® or its generic counterpart, Meto-clopramide (“MCP”). (Doc. # 105, at 1.) Plaintiff Rosalyn Bell contends that she ingested MCP i

ORDER BILLY ROY WILSON, District Judge. Pending is Plaintiffs Rule 59 Motion for New Trial (Doc. No. 319). Defendants have responded.1 Plaintiff alleges three grounds for a new trial: (1) inappropriate contact between the bailiff and jury; (2) juror misconduct, ie., reading and discussing newspaper accounts of the trial before reaching a verdict; and (3) the a

ORDER ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE LEE YEAKEL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Before the court are Defendant Wyeth Pharmaceuticals Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint (Clerk’s Doc. No. 28); Plaintiffs Amended Memorandum in Response to Defendant Wyeth’s Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint (Clerk’s Doc. No. 30); and Defendant Wyeth Pharmaceuti

.KURT S. ODENWALD, Judge. Introduction This appeal presents a poignant scenario raised in numerous lawsuits throughout the country against manufacturers of the prescription drug metoclopramide. Meto-clopramide, also sold under the brand name Reglan, is used to treat digestive problems including diabetic gastroparesis and gastroesophageal reflex

ORDER LOUISE W. FLANAGAN, United States District Judge This matter comes before the court on defendants’ motions to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (DE 23, 34, 41). Plaintiff has responded in opposition, and defendants have replied. In this posture, the issues raised are ripe for ruling. For the following reasons, defendants’ motions are granted. STATEMENT

762 F.Supp.2d 694 (2010) Ethel KELLOGG, Plaintiff, v. WYETH, Individually and as Successor-in-Interest to A.H. Robins Company, Inc. and American Home Products Corporation; Schwarz Pharma, Inc.; Actavis, Inc.; Actavis-Elizabeth, L.L.C.; Alpharma, Inc.; Purepac Pharmaceutical Company, Inc.; Teva Pharmaceuticals, USA, Inc.; Bar Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Pliva, Inc.; and Drug Company Does 1 Through 10, inclusive, Defendants. Case N

ORDER GRANTING GENERIC DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS S. THOMAS ANDERSON, District Judge. Seven cases involving Defendant Wyeth LLC (“Wyeth”) and other pharmaceutical companies identified later in this Order are currently pending before the Court. These cases revolve around Plaintiffs’ injuries arising from their ingestion of the brand name drug Reglan or its generic version, metoclopramide. The Court will d

Introduction KURT S. ODENWALD, Judge. This appeal arises out of Appellant Norma Nicely’s (“Nicely”) tort action against brand-name and generic manufacturers of the prescription drug metoclopramide. Nicely was diagnosed with tardive dys-kinesia following her prolonged use of me-toclopramide. Although Nicely ingested only the generic form of t

*1247 WILSON, Circuit Judge: Plaintiff Angela Guarino appeals the district court’s dismissal of her claims against the brand-name manufacturers of the prescription drug Reglan, Wyeth LLC and Schwarz Pharma, Inc. (collectively, the “Brand Manufacturers”), and grant of summary judgment in favor of Teva P

ORDER GRANTING BRAND NAME DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT S.THOMAS ANDERSON, District Judge. Before the Court are the Brand Name Defendants’ separate Motions for Summary Judgment, all filed on February 10, 2012. Plaintiffs have responded in opposition to Defendants’ Motions, and Defendants have filed reply briefs. For the reasons set forth below, the Brand Name Defendants’ Motions are GRANTED.<

719 F.Supp.2d 1340 (2010) Odessa MOSLEY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. WYETH, INC., et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. 09-0284-KD-C. United States District Court, S.D. Alabama, Southern Division. June 28, 2010. *1342 Thomas Edward Dutton, Pittman, Hooks, Dutton & Hollis, P.C., Birmingham, AL, Alexandra Vanassa Boone, Javier Gonzal

588 F.3d 603 (2009) Gladys MENSING, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WYETH, INC., doing business as Wyeth; Pliva, Inc.; Teva Pharmaceuticals, USA, Inc.; Alpharma, Inc., doing business as Alpharma Pharmaceuticals; UDL Laboratories, Inc.; Actavis Elizabeth, LLC; Schwarz Pharma, Inc.; Purepac Pharmaceutical Company, and the following fictitious party defendants (whether singular or plural, individual or corporate): No. 1, that entity which originally obtaine

(2008) Gladys MENSING, Plaintiff, v. WYETH, INC. (d/b/a Wyeth); Schwarz Pharma, Inc.; Pliva, Inc.; Teva Pharmaceuticals, USA, Inc.; Alpharma, Inc., d/b/a Alpharma Pharmaceuticals; UDL Laboratories, Inc.; Actavis Elizabeth, LLC, and Purepac Pharmaceutical Co.; and the following fictitious party defendants (whether singular or plural, individual or corporate): No. 1, that entity which originally obtained permission from the U.S. Food and Drug Admin

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA No. 12–0596 Filed July 11, 2014 THERESA HUCK, Appellant, vs. WYETH, INC. d/b/a WYETH; SCHWARZ PHARMA, INC.; and PLIVA, INC., Appellees. On review from the Iowa Court of Appeals. Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Sac County, Gary L. McMinimee, Judge. Plaintiff seeks further review of court of appeals decision affirming summary judgments

MOORE, Chief Justice (dissenting). I respectfully dissent because I do not think that this Court should accept a certified question when critical facts are not before the Court. I was not a member of this Court when the certified question from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama was answered on original submission. However, I note that Danny Weeks and Vicki Wee

42 F.Supp.2d 1260 (1999) Angela CASSIDY, Plaintiff, v. WYETH-AYERST LABORATORIES DIVISION OF AMERICAN HOME PRODUCTS CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. 99-T-114-S. United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Southern Division. March 26, 1999. *1261 F. Hilton-Green Tomlinson, James G. Henderson, Pritchard, McCall &am;

TORRUELLA, Circuit Judge. Barbara Bradley and her husband, Michael Bradley, sued Dr. David Sugarbaker, a thoracic surgeon at Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston, after Dr. Sugarbaker performed a surgical biopsy on Ms. Bradley that resulted in extensive complications. A trial ensued and the jury returned a verdict in favor of Dr. Sugarbaker. The Bradleys appealed, and we vacated the j

ORDER: (1) GRANTING DEFENDANT CURTIS POWELL’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. 198); (2) GRANTING DEFENDANT JAMES WILBURN POWELL’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. 205); AND (3) GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS DIANA AND JAMES BRADLEY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. 208) TIMOTHY S. BLACK, District Judge. This civil action is before the Court on (1) Defendant Curtis Powell’s motion for

ROSEMARY M. COLLYER, United States District Judge How much employer control is required for an independent contractor to be considered an employee under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. ? That is the question raised by a purported class of employees who provide blogging a