Generic Drug Preemption Scorecard

We’ve decided that, since PLIVA, Inc. v. Mensing, 131 S. Ct. 2567 (2011), product liability preemption in the context of generic drugs has come into its own and should no longer be lumped in with the overall topic of drug/vaccine preemption.  Thus we’re bestowing a new scorecard on post-Mensing generic drug preemption decisions. We’ll start with Mensing itself and go from there:

1. PLIVA, Inc. v. Mensing, 131 S. Ct. 2567 (U.S. June 23, 2011) (metoclopramide).  Hatch Waxman Act's requirement that generic drug labeling must stay the same as branded labeling preempts failure to warn claims against generic drug makers.  Generic drug manufacturers cannot change their labels without prior FDA approval.  Dear Doctor/DHCP letters cannot vary from generic drug labeling.  The bare chance that the FDA, if approached, might agree to change both the generic and branded labels simultaneously, is insufficient to prevent preemption.
2. Sacks v. Endoscopy Center, 2011 WL 4915174 (Nev. Dist. July 28, 2011) (propofol).  Motion for summary judgment denied.   Claim that generic defendants should have sent a Dear Doctor/DHCP letter consistent with the drug’s labeling, and without any new or additional warnings, are not preempted.  Claim that generic defendants should have sent a Dear Doctor/DHCP letter consistent with the drug’s labeling, and without any new or additional warnings, are not preempted.  Design defect and implied warranty claims are not preempted.
3. Brown v. Actavis Elizabeth LLC, 2011 WL 5826022, slip op. (E.D. La. Aug. 10, 2011) (metoclopramide).  Motion to dismiss granted. State law claims challenging the adequacy of generic drug labeling are preempted.  Minute order.
4. Keck v. Endoscopy Center, 2011 WL 3921690, slip op. (Nev. Dist. Aug. 19, 2011) (propofol).  Granting partial summary judgment against preemption defense.  Claim that generic defendants should have sent a Dear Doctor/DHCP letter consistent with the drug’s labeling, and without any new or additional warnings, are not preempted.  Plaintiffs cannot argue that the label on the drug itself should be changed.  Refusing to defer to FDA view that generic manufacturers could not unilaterally send any such letters.  State law failure to warn claims are preempted.
5. Demahy v. Actavis, Inc., 650 F.3d 1045 (5th Cir. Aug. 22, 2011) (metoclopramide).  Per curiam order on remand from the Supreme Court, vacating and remanding for entry of judgment in favor of defendant on grounds of preemption.
6. Henderson v. Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries, Ltd, 809 F. Supp.2d 1373 (N.D. Ga. Aug. 22, 2011) (phenytoin and fosphenytoin).  Motion to amend denied; motion to dismiss granted.  Manufacturing-related warning letter sent to defendant did not relate to drug in question or to the plaintiff’s alleged injury.  None of the allegations plead causation.  State law failure to warn claims are preempted.
7. Scott v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 2011 WL 4007675 (S.D. Ala. Sept. 9, 2011) (phenergan). Unopposed summary judgment granted.  State law claims challenging the adequacy of generic drug labeling are preempted.
8. Brasley-Thrash v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., 2011 WL 4025734 (S.D. Ala. Sept. 12, 2011) (metoclopramide).  Motion to amend granted in part and denied in part.  Claim that generic defendants should have sent a Dear Doctor/DHCP letter consistent with the drug’s labeling, and without any new or additional warnings, are not preempted.  At the time of the prescription, the FDA did not require pre-approval of such letters. State law claims challenging the adequacy of generic drug labeling are preempted.
9. Beck v. Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., 2011 WL 4062219 (E.D. La. Sept. 13, 2011) (methotrexate).  Motion to dismiss granted.  State law claims challenging the adequacy of generic drug labeling are preempted.
10. Smith v. Wyeth, Inc., 657 F.3d 420 (6th Cir. Sept. 22, 2011) (metoclopramide).  State law claims challenging the adequacy of generic drug labeling are preempted.  Cert. denied, 132 S.Ct. 2103 (2012).
11. Schork v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 2011 WL 4402602 (S.D. Ind. Sept. 22, 2011) (promethazine HCL).  State law claims challenging the adequacy of generic drug labeling are preempted.
12. Fisher v. Pelstring, 817 F. Supp.2d 791 (D.S.C. Sept. 30, 2011) (metoclopramide), reconsideration denied, (Jan. 11, 2012) (see below).  Motion to dismiss on preemption grounds denied due to uncertainty whether generic drug labeling at the time of plaintiff's prescription timely included the most recent update to branded warnings.  Summary judgment on failure to warn, implied warranty, consumer fraud, and emotional distress denied because, inter alia, the defendant could have sent a "Dear Doctor" letter about the label changes it failed to include.  Express warranty, fraud, and misrepresentation claims preempted because they would have required a non-identical label change.  Plaintiff's claim for breach of a duty to keep current with scientific literature is preempted because without a non-identical label change, the duty could not be causal.
13. LaBruyere v. Actavis, Inc., 2011 WL 5826018, slip op. (E.D. La. Oct. 4, 2011) (metoclopramide).  Unopposed motion to dismiss granted. State law claims challenging the adequacy of generic drug labeling are preempted.  Minute order.
14. Stevens v. Community Health Care, Inc., 29 Mass. L. Rptr. 153, 2011 WL 6379298 (Mass. Super. Oct. 5, 2011)  (clarithromycin).  Summary judgment granted.  An distributor of a generic drug has no ability to change the warnings on generic drugs.
15. Hutchinson v. Endoscopy Center, 2011 WL 6688744 (Nev. Dist. Oct. 5, 2011) (propofol).  Motion for summary judgment denied in part and granted in part.  State law claims challenging the adequacy of generic drug labeling are preempted.  Claim that generic defendants should have sent a Dear Doctor/DHCP letter consistent with the drug’s labeling, and without any new or additional warnings, are not preempted.  Claim that generic defendants should have sent a Dear Doctor/DHCP letter consistent with the drug’s labeling, and without any new or additional warnings, are not preempted.
16. Guilbeau v. Wyeth, Inc., 2011 WL 4948996 (W.D. La. Oct. 14, 2011) (metoclopramide).  Motion for judgment on the pleadings granted.  State law claims challenging the adequacy of generic drug labeling are preempted.  No facts are pleaded to support any other claim.
17. Phillips v. Wyeth, Inc., 2011 WL 5826035, slip op. (W.D. La. Oct. 14, 2011) (metoclopramide).  Unopposed motion for judgment on the pleadings granted on same grounds as Guilbeau.
18. Morris v. Wyeth, Inc., 2011 WL 4973839, slip op. (W.D. La. Oct. 19, 2011) (metoclopramide).  Motion to dismiss granted. State law claims challenging the adequacy of generic drug labeling are preempted.  Express preemption cases do not control.  Claims based upon alleged failure to use other "FDA-recommended communication tools," such as "Dear Doctor" letters are preempted.  Plaintiff alleged no facts in support of any non-warning claim.  Motion to amend denied, 2012 WL 601455 (W.D. La. Feb. 21, 2012), plaintiff's failure-to-update claims claims that all pre-2009 labeling was defective, which is preempted; pre-Mensing cases recognizing less preemption are overruled.  Express warranty claims are preempted.  A reference listed drug designation does not convert the defendant into a branded manufacturer for purposes of preemption.
19. Richardson v. Wyeth, Inc., 2011 WL 5402184, slip op. (W.D. La. Oct. 20, 2011), adopted, 2011 WL 5402396, slip op. (W.D. La. Nov. 6, 2011) (metoclopramide).  Unopposed motion to dismiss granted. State law claims challenging the adequacy of generic drug labeling are preempted.
20. Metz v. Wyeth, LLC, 2011 WL 5024448, slip op. (M.D. Fla. Oct. 20, 2011) (metoclopramide).  Motion to dismiss granted.  All warning claims are preempted.  All non-warning claims are inadequately pleaded.  Causation must be pleaded in any non-preempted claim.  Claims that the defendant failed to monitor developments, or notify the FDA, relate to warnings and are preempted.  Design claims must allege that the generic defendant designed the product.  Warranty and fraud claims relate to information about the product and are preempted.  Negligence per se claims based on labeling are preempted.
21. Waguespack v. PLIVA USA, Inc., 2011 WL 5826015, slip op. (E.D. La. Nov. 3, 2011) (metoclopramide).  Motion for judgment on the pleadings granted.  State law claims challenging the adequacy of generic drug labeling are preempted.  Plaintiff did not plead an identical Dear Doctor letter claim.
22. Sincoskie v. West Ward Pharmaceuticals, No. MEL-L-2643-10, transcript (N.J. Super. Law Div. Mercer Co. Nov. 4, 1022).  Motion to dismiss granted.  State law claims challenging the adequacy of generic drug labeling are preempted.  That the defendant's product has been designated a reference listed drug does not establish that it may unilaterally change its warnings. 
23. Guarino v. Wyeth LLC, 823 F. Supp.2d 1289 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 7, 2011) (metoclopramide).  Motion to dismiss granted.  All warning claims are preempted.  Mensing does not include an exception for parallel violation claims.  "Failure to communicate" claims, based on Dear Doctor letters, are preempted. Reconsideration denied, 2012 WL 28810 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 5, 2012), second reconsideration denied, 2012 WL 1890516 (M.D. Fla. May 23, 2012).
24. In re Accutane Products Liability Litigation, 2011 WL 6224546, slip op. (M.D. Fla. Nov. 9, 2011) (isotretinoin).  Judgment on the pleadings granted.  All warning claims are preempted.  (Unspecified) arguments that plaintiffs claims are not warning claims are "devoid of merit."  Warning-based claims against a pharmacist selling generic drugs are also preempted.
25. Stevens v. PLIVA, Inc., 2011 WL 6224569, slip op. (Mag. W.D. La. Nov. 15, 2011) (metoclopramide). Unopposed motion to dismiss granted. State law claims challenging the adequacy of generic drug labeling are preempted.  Design defect claims are preempted. Adopted, 2011 WL 6224556 (W.D. La. Dec. 2, 2011).
26. In re Reglan/Metoclopramide Litigation, 2011 WL 6259558, slip op. (Pa. C.P. Philadelphia Co. Nov. 18, 2011) (metoclopramide).  Master preliminary objections denied.  It is not shown with certainty that there can be no legal recovery in 2000 cases brought under the laws of numerous states.  Mensing "carve outs" must be decided on a state-by-state basis.  The same is true for claims involving the injectible form of the drug.
27. In re Fosamax Litigation, 2011 WL 5903623 (D.N.J. Nov. 21, 2011) (alendronate sodium).  Judgment on the pleadings granted as to all generic defendants (some defendants' status as generic manufacturers was disputed and could not be resolved on the pleadings).  No factual allegations support any sort of manufacturing-related claim.  The design of a generic drug, like its warnings, must be the same as the branded reference drug.  Therefore design defect claims and negligent design claims are preempted.  State law claims challenging the adequacy of generic drug labeling are preempted.  Taking alleged increased risk evidence to the branded manufacturer rather than the FDA does not change the preemption analysis because any label change would still be dependent upon the act of an independent third party.  Nothing in the 2007 FDAAA changes the generic preemption analysis.  There is no evidence that generic labels were not updated promptly.  Negligence claims related to warnings are preempted.  Implied warranty claims are founded on changing the design of the drug, and are therefore preempted.  Express warranty, fraud, misrepresentation, and consumer protection claims all attack the drug's labeling and are therefore preempted.  Dependent claims are also dismissed.
28. Gross v. Pfizer, Inc., 825 F. Supp.2d 654 (D. Md. Nov. 22, 2011) (metoclopramide).  Judgment on the pleadings granted.  Negligence claims alleging that generic manufacturers had a duty to cease selling their product at all are preempted.  Such a claim, if it existed at all, would directly conflict with FDA authority to determine what drugs can be sold in interstate commerce.  Claims for concealing information are warning claims and are preempted.  Failure to test/inspect are warning claims and are preempted.  Claims alleging failure to update do not exist at state law, and in any event are preempted.  Reconsideration denied, 825 F. Supp. 2d 661 (D. Md. Jan. 27, 2012).  Plaintiffs have not pleaded that the allegedly unupdated warning was adequate, so that claim is also preempted.
29. Phelps v. Wyeth, Inc., 2011 WL 7629569 (Mag. D. Or. Nov. 30, 2011) (metoclopramide).  Motion to dismiss granted against all claims, including  post-marketing failure to monitor, with the exception of failure to update warnings after the branded label was changed.  Failure to update may be asserted as negligence per se.
30. Whitener, v. PLIVA, Inc., 2011 WL 6056546 (E.D. La. Dec. 6, 2011) (metoclopramide).  Judgment on the pleadings granted in part and denied in part.  Nothing in the 2007 FDAAA affects the preemption rationale in Mensing.  Off-label use does not defeat preemption.  Any additional warning about an off-label would create a label that is not the same as the branded label.  If plaintiffs want to assert some claim based upon illegal off-label promotion, they must amend their complaint.  On reconsideration at, 2012 WL 3948797 (E.D. La. Sept. 10, 2012).  Conceivably illegal off-label promption could also violate state law so the claim will not be dismissed on the pleadings.  The 2007 FDAAA made no changes in generic labeling, thus nothing in FDAAA bars preemption of post-2007 claims.
31. Schrock v. Wyeth Inc., 2011 WL 6130924 (W.D. Okla. Dec. 8, 2009) (metoclopramide).  Motion for leave to amend denied.  Express and implied warranty claims are preempted.
32. Fullington v. PLIVA, Inc., 2011 WL 6153608 (E.D. Ark. Dec. 12, 2011) (metoclopramide).  Motion to dismiss granted.  State law claims challenging the adequacy of generic drug labeling are preempted.  Non-warning claims not adequately pleaded.  Failure to update labeling claims not adequately pleaded.  Claims alleging that generic manufacturers had a duty to cease selling their product at all are preempted.  Amended complaint dismissed except for one count, 2012 WL 1893749 (E.D. Ark. May 23, 2012).  Alleged design defect claim alleging improper use of bulk packaging was actually a warning claim and was preempted.  Bartlett is distinguishable because it was pure risk-utility rather than involving only one use.  Failure to update claims are preempted to the extent that the updated label was allegedly still defective.  Other failure to update claims will be addressed on summary judgment.  Reconsideration denied, 2012 WL 2918711 (E.D. Ark. July 17, 2012).
33. Del Valle v. PLIVA, Inc., 2011 WL 7168620, slip op. (Mag. S.D. Tex. Dec. 21, 2011) (metoclopramide).  Motion to dismiss granted.  State law claims challenging the adequacy of generic drug labeling are preempted.  Claims for failure to add label changes that plaintiffs claim were still defective do not state a claim, as there can be no causation for failing to add labeling that was still defective.  adopted 2012 WL 2899406 (S.D. Tex. June 22, 2012).
34. Grinage v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 840 F. Supp.2d 862 (D. Md. Dec. 30, 2011) (allopurinol).  Motion to dismiss granted.  State law claims challenging the adequacy of generic drug labeling are preempted.  All forms of communication between manufacturers and doctors, "Dear Doctor" letters, physician training, and professional publications, are labeling and preempted if different from branded labeling.  To the extent plaintiff argues for other communications bearing identical information, no causation is pleaded.  Taking alleged increased risk evidence to the branded manufacturer rather than the FDA does not change the preemption analysis because any label change would still be dependent upon the act of an independent third party.  Consumer expectation-based design defect claims are based on warning information and are preempted.  No alternative design or lack of utility is pleaded that could support a risk-utility design defect claim.  Implied warranty claims are either preempted or inadequately pleaded.  Fraud claims implicating the label are preempted, any others are inadequately pleaded.
35. Yamane v. Wyeth, 2101 WL 1120367 (Haw. Cir. Jan. 3, 2012) (phenergan).  Summary Judgment granted.  All plaintiff's state law claims, including warranty, consumer fraud, and design defect, are really warning claims.  All warning claims involving a generic drug are preempted.  That no branded equivalent drug remains on the market does not affect preemption.  That the generic manufacturer purchased the brand name for the drug does not affect preemption.
36. Moore v. Mylan, Inc., 840 F. Supp.2d 1337 (N.D. Ga. Jan. 5, 2012) (phenytoin).  Motion to dismiss granted.  State law claims challenging the adequacy of generic drug labeling are preempted.  That the defendant's product has been designated a reference listed drug does not establish that it may unilaterally change its warnings.  Negligence claims alleging that generic manufacturers had a duty to cease selling their product at all are preempted.  Such a claim, if it existed at all, would directly conflict with FDA authority to determine what drugs can be sold in interstate commerce.
37. Huck v. Trimark Physicians Group, 2012 WL 553492, slip op. (Iowa Dist. Jan. 5, 2012) (metoclopramide).  Motion for summary judgment granted.  State law claims challenging the adequacy of generic drug labeling are preempted. 
38. Fisher v. Pelstring, 817 F. Supp.2d 791 (D.S.C. Jan. 11, 2012) (metoclopramide).  Motion to dismiss denied with respect to preemption arguments.  An implied warranty claim not premised on warnings is not preempted.  Motion to dismiss denied on negligence, fraud, consumer fraud, and emotional distress claims relating to failure to update generic drug labeling to include FDA-approved changes. The changes relate to the plaintiff's claim.  A negligence action in which the standard of care is defined by statute is not necessarily the equivalent of private enforcement of the FDCA. Claim that generic defendants should have sent a Dear Doctor/DHCP letter consistent with the drug’s labeling, and without any new or additional warnings, are not preempted.
39. Couick v. Wyeth, Inc., 2012 WL 79670 (W.D.N.C. Jan. 11, 2012) (metoclopramide). Motion to dismiss granted in part and denied in part. Without a showing establishing that the defendant's label actually mirrored the branded label, state law warning and express warranty claims may not be preempted. An implied warranty claim not premised on warnings is not preempted. No cause of action exists for failure to test. FDCA violation claims are preempted under Buckman.
40. In re Fosamax Litigation, 2012 WL 181411 (D.N.J. Jan. 17, 2012) (alendronate sodium).  Motion for judgment on the pleadings granted.  An authorized distributor of a generic drug has no more ability to change warnings than any other generic drug manufacturer.
41. Coney v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 2012 WL 170143, slip op. (S.D. Ga. Jan. 19, 2012) (phenytoin).  Motion for summary judgment granted.  State law claims, including fraud, challenging the adequacy of generic drug labeling are preempted.  Various warning theories were not pleaded.  Claims that generic manufacturers had a duty to cease selling their product at all are preempted.  Such claims  would directly conflict with FDA authority to determine what drugs can be sold in interstate commerce.  Generic preemption is not dependent on any way on conduct of branded manufacturers or other third parties.  Nonwarning claims are inadequately pleaded.
42. In re Pamidronate Products Liability Litigation, 842 F. Supp.2d 479 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 30, 2012) (pamindronate).  Motion to dismiss granted.  All state law claims are preempted.  State law claims challenging the adequacy of generic drug labeling are preempted.  Design defect claims are preempted because the same requirement of "sameness" applied to the design of generic drugs.  Negligent testing and breach of express warranty claims are warning claims in disguise and are preempted.  Implied warranty claims are design defect claims in disguise and are preempted.
43. Kellogg v. Wyeth, 2012 WL 368658, slip op. (D. Vt. Feb. 3, 2012) (metoclopramide).  Motion for judgment on the pleadings granted.  All state law warning claims are preempted.  All claims alleging a duty to provide additional information are preempted, whether for promotional or educational purposes, and whether involving on or off-label use, as they would be different from the approved labeling.
44. Lyman v. Pfizer, Inc., 2012 WL 368675, slip op. (D. Vt. Feb. 3, 2012) (metoclopramide).  Motion for judgment on the pleadings granted in part and denied in part.  All state law warning claims are preempted.  Design defect claims are preempted because the same requirement of "sameness" applied to the design of generic drugs.  Claims that generic manufacturers had a duty to cease selling their product at all are preempted.  Claims that generic manufacturers engaged in inadequate post-marketing surveillance are preempted.  Claims relating to failure to update generic drug labeling to include FDA-approved changes are not preempted but are inadequately pleaded.
45. Moretti v. Mutual Pharmaceutical Co., ___ F. Supp.2d ___, 2012 WL 465867, slip op. (D. Minn. Feb. 13, 2012) (metoclopramide).  Motion for judgment on the pleadings granted.  All state law warning claims are preempted.  Claims alleging inadequate post-marketing surveillance are warning-related claims and are preempted.   Claims that generic manufacturers had a duty to cease marketing their product at all are preempted.
46. Bell v. PLIVA, Inc., 845 F.Supp.2d 967 (E.D. Ark. Feb. 16, 2012) (metoclopramide).  Motion to dismiss granted.  All state law warning claims are preempted.  While failure to update generic warning claims might violate the FDCA, it was still impossible for a generic manufacture to communicate different information to plaintiff's private physician.
47. Gaeta v. Perrigo Pharmaceuticals Co., ___ Fed. Appx. ___, 2012 WL 605678 (9th Cir. Feb. 27, 2012). Summary affirmance of pre-Mensing decision holding claims against generic manufacturer preempted. Follows remand from the Supreme Court.
48. Bowman v. Wyeth, LLC, 2012 WL 684116 (D. Minn. March 2, 2012) (metoclopramide).  Motion for judgment on the pleadings granted.  Claims alleging false information, concealment, and knowingly marketing an unreasonably dangerous product are warning claims and are preempted.  Failure to update claims were not pleaded and fail to state a cause of action because plaintiff claims the later warnings are inadequate, and there is no duty to provide an inadequate warning.
49. In re Darvocet, Darvon & Propoxyphene Products Liability Litigation, 2012 WL 718618, slip op.  (E.D. Ky. March 5, 2012) (propoxyphene).  Motion to dismiss granted.  Wrongful marketing claims that generic manufacturers had a duty to cease selling their product at all are preempted.  The sameness obligation applies to design as well as warning.  Both design and warning claims are preempted.  "Information and belief" pleading that the defendants did not update their warnings in a timely fashion is pure conjecture insufficient under TwIqbal to state a claim.  "Dear Doctor" letter-based warning claims are inadequately pleaded and would be preempted.  That a defendant's product has been designated a reference listed drug does not establish that it may unilaterally change its warnings.  Fraud, consumer fraud, and express warranty claims seek to change the label and are preempted.  Claims based on alleged violations of the FDCA are preempted as improper private rights of action.  Motion to amend denied 2012 WL 1478798 (E.D. Ky. April 27, 2012).
50. Cooper v. Wyeth, Inc., 2012 WL 733846, slip op. (M.D. La. March 6, 2012) (metoclopramide).  Motion to dismiss granted in part and denied in part.  Claims that the defendant manufacturer failed to update its generic drug labeling to include FDA-approved changes are not preempted.  It is not impossible to comply with federal law.  Claims for failure to communicate strengthened labels via "Dear Doctor" letter following an FDA label change are not preempted.  These claims fit within existing tort causes of action and thus are not barred as private rights of action.  Claims of inadequate post-marketing pharmacovigilance are preempted.  Claims that generic manufacturers had a duty to cease selling their product at all seek repudiation of the FDA approved label and are preempted.  Claims of failure to use additional forms of communication to provide warnings are preempted.  That a defendant's product has been designated a reference listed drug does not establish that it may unilaterally change its warnings.  Express warranty claims based on labeling are preempted.
    Design defect claims are do not really challenge the design, only the warnings, and thus are preempted.  Manufacturing defect claims are inadequately pleaded.
51. Metz v. Wyeth, ___ F.Supp.2d ___, 2012 WL 1058870 (M.D. Fla. March 28, 2012) (metoclopramide).  Motion to dismiss granted in part and denied in part.  Summary judgment motion granted.  Negligence and warranty claims escape preemption to the extent they allege that the defendant should have taken additional steps to warn about information recently added to the FDA-approved label.  Claims that the drug should have been redesigned or removed from the market are preempted.  Inadequate testing and failure to report claims are preempted.  Summary judgment granted on grounds that the warnings were adequate as a matter of law.
52. Fulgenzi v. PLIVA, Inc., ___ F.Supp.2d ___, 2012 WL 1110009 (N.D. Ohio March 31, 2012) (metoclopramide).  Motion to dismiss granted.  State law claims challenging the adequacy of generic drug labeling are preempted.  All non-warning claims were insufficiently pleaded.  Allegations that the defendant failed to update warnings flow from federal, rather than state, law and no private enforcement of the FDCA is allowed.  If adequately pleaded, design defect claims would be preempted under the statute's sameness requirement.  Claims for breach of express and implied warranties, misrepresentation, breach of undertaking, fraud, constructive fraud, fraudulent concealment, and intentional infliction of emotional distress all assert warning claims and are preempted.  A claim that the drug should have been removed from the market is preempted.
53. Phelps v. Wyeth, Inc., ___ F.Supp.2d ___, 2012 WL 1499343, slip op. (D. Or. April 24, 2012) (metoclopramide).  Summary judgment granted.  All warning claims preempted.  FDCA-based claims fail for lack of any private right of action.  Testing and monitoring claims cannot stand independently of a duty to warn.  Parallel claims cannot avoid implied preemption. 
54. Eckhardt v. Qualitest Pharmaceuticals, Inc., ___ F.Supp.2d ___, 2012 WL 1511817, slip op. (S.D. Tex. April 30, 2012) (metoclopramide).  Motion to dismiss granted.  Preemption is unaffected by the 2007 amendments to the FDCA.  The fraud on the FDA exception to the Texas presumption of adequacy statute is preempted.  Failure to test or monitor is noncausal unless it results in a changed warning, and all warning claims are preempted.  Failure to update claims are preempted, to the extent pleaded, and not pleaded to the extend unpreempted.  Withdrawal from the market claims are a fortiori preempted.  Design defect and consumer fraud claims are preempted.  Defendant cannot be liable on theories Texas law has not recognized.
55. Bartlett v. Mutual Pharmaceutical Co., 678 F.3d 30 (1st Cir. May 2, 2012) (suldinac).  Jury verdict for plaintiff affirmed.  A no-alternative design design defect claim is not preempted.  State law may impose liability on a generic drug manufacturer for not removing an FDA-approved drug from the market based on the jury's independent re-evaluation of the product's risks and benefits.  Second-guessing the FDA is permissible under Levine.
56. In re Reglan Litigation, 2012 WL 1613329, slip op. (N.J. Super. Law Div. May 4, 2012) (metoclopramide).  Motion to dismiss granted in large part.   All plaintiffs' claims are warning-based and are preempted, except for failure to update labels when required by the FDA.  Nothing in the 2007 FDAAA changes the generic preemption analysis.  Claims of failure to use additional forms of communication to provide warnings are preempted.  Withdrawal from the market claims do not exist under state law and would be preempted if they did.
57. In re Reglan Litigation, No. 289, slip op. (N.J. Super. Law Div. May 4, 2012) ("Reglan II") (metoclopramide).  Motion to dismiss granted.  That a defendant's product has been designated a reference listed drug does not establish that it may unilaterally change its warnings. 
58. Brinkley v. Pfizer, Inc., 2012 WL 1865402 (W.D. Mo. May 22, 2012) (metoclopramide).  Motion for judgment on the pleadings granted.  All claims, including failure to communicate with doctors in other ways and failure to update, are merely back-door warning claims that are preempted.
59. Johnson v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., 2012 WL 1866839 (W.D. La. May 21, 2012) (metoclopramide).  Judgment on the pleadings granted.   All warning claims preempted.  Claims of failure to use additional forms of communication to provide warnings are preempted.  Failure to update claims are not preempted, but fail to state a claim because plaintiff pleaded that even the updated warning would have been inadequate.  Express warranty and design defect claim asserting an alternative package design are really warning claims and are preempted.  Regular design defect claims are preempted because prior FDA approval is required.  A claim that the drug should have been removed from the market is preempted and does not state a claim under state law.
60. Kriesmer v. Upsher-Smith Laboratories, Inc., 2012 WL 2003945 (Ohio C.P. May 24, 2012) (warfarin).  Motion to dismiss granted in part and denied in part.  All warning claims preempted.  Design/manufacturing defect claim that doses were subject to a recall because they contained more of the active ingredient than they were supposed to were not preempted.  Consumer fraud action survived because it did not have to be pleaded with specificity.
61. Whitener, v. PLIVA, Inc., 2012 WL 1995795 (E.D. La. June 4, 2012) (metoclopramide).  Claims that the defendant passively knew its drug was being used off label are preempted.  Claims that the defendant actively promoted its drug for off-label use in violation of the FDCA might not be preempted and survive a motion to dismiss.
62. In re Darvocet, Darvon & Propoxyphene Products Liability Litigation, 2012 WL 2457825, slip op. (E.D. Ky. June 22, 2012) (propoxyphene).  Motion to reconsider denied.  The Bartlett remove the product from the market theory is unpersuasive and is rejected.
63. Lashley v. Pfizer, Inc., ___ F. Supp.2d ___, 2012 WL 2459148 (S.D. Miss. June 27, 2012) (metoclopramide).  Motion to dismiss granted.  All warning and design claims preempted. 
64. Lyman v. Pfizer, Inc., 2012 WL 2970627 (D. Vt. July 20, 2012) (metoclopramide). Motion to dismiss granted. All warning claims preempted.  Claims of failure to use additional forms of communication to transmit later changed warnings are not preempted.  A failure to update claim is not preempted.  Claims that the product should have been packaged differently to discourage certain uses are preempted.  Design claim was preempted as a disguised attack on the product's warnings.
65. Aucoin v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC, 2012 WL 2990697 (E.D. La. July 20, 2012) (tramadol). Motion to dismiss granted.  A claim that the drug should have been removed from the market is preempted as they necessarily repudiate the FDA approved label.  Design defect claims are preempted as generic designs are subject to the same "sameness" requirements as generic warnings. 
66. In re Darvocet, Darvon & Propoxyphene Products Liability Litigation,  2012 WL 3109424 (E.D. Ky. July 31, 2012) (propoxyphene).  Judgment on the pleadings granted.  All claims against a contract manufacturer of generic drugs are either preempted by Mensing or barred by product identification.
67. In re: Accutane (Isotretinoin) Products Liability Litigation, 2012 WL 3194952 (M.D. Fla. Aug.7, 2012) (isotretinoin).  Judgment on the pleadings granted in part.  All warning claims preempted.  Design defect claims preempted under the statute's sameness requirement.  Plaintiff may replead a manufacturing defect claim.
68. Strayhorn v. Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, Inc., ___ F. Supp.2d ___, 2012 WL 3261377 (W.D. Tenn. Aug. 8, 2012) (metoclopramide).  Motions to dismiss granted in seven cases.  All warning claims preempted.  The Bartlett remove the product from the market theory is rejected.  Conte is unpersuasive and rejected.  Express preemption cases are irrelevant to implied preemption.  Dear Doctor letters are labeling so claims based on them are preempted.  Failure to conform claims are preempted as private attempts to enforce the FDCA.  Conspiracy claims are preempted.
69. Truddle v. Wyeth, LLC, C.A. No. 2:11-CV-00207-GHD-SAA, 2012 WL 3338715 (N.D. Miss. Aug.14, 2012) (metoclopramide).  Motion to dismiss granted.  All warning claims preempted, including consumer fraud.  A duty to test claim is a preempted warning claim because the test results would have to be communicated.  Fraud on the FDA claims are preempted.
70. Jacobsen v. Wyeth, LLC, 2012 WL 3575293 (E.D. La. Aug. 20, 2012) (metoclopramide).  Motion to dismiss granted.  To the extent a failure to monitor claim exists under Louisiana law, it is a warning claim and is preempted.  Monitoring must result in a label change to have any effect.  A "unit of use" design defect claim is really a warning claim and is preempted.  Design defect claims are also preempted by federal "sameness" requirements.  All warning claims, including Dear Doctor letters, are preempted.  Requiring a generic drug to be removed from the market is preempted as a repudiation of the label.  No failure to update claim was pleaded, and leave to amend is not sought.  An express warranty claim based on generic labeling is preempted, and no other warranty is alleged.
71. Phares v. Actavis-Elizabeth LLC, No. B:11-63, 2012 U.S. Dist. Lexis 123858, (S.D. Tex. Aug. 30, 2012) (metoclopramide).  Motion to dismiss granted.  All warning claims preempted.  The fraud on the FDA exception to the Texas statutory presumption of adequacy is preempted, therefore the statutory presumption applied.  Fraud and suppression of evidence are inadequately pleaded.