Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

In re Intuniv Antitrust Litig. (Indirect Purchasers)

United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts

November 6, 2019, Decided; November 6, 2019, Filed

Civil Action No. 1:16-cv-12396-ADB

Opinion

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

BURROUGHS, D.J.

Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs ("IPPs") seek reconsideration of the Court's August 21, 2019, Order [ECF No. 230] that denied their motion for class certification. [ECF No. 235]. The IPPs now request that the Court certify a class of persons who bought brand Intuniv or generic Guanfacine ER with cash or co-insurance. For the reasons discussed herein, the motion for reconsideration [ECF No. 235] is DENIED.

I. BACKGROUND

A more complete version of the facts is provided in the Court's August 21, 2019, Order. See In re Intuniv Antitrust Litig., No. 16-cv-12396, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 141643, 2019 WL 3947262, at *1-2 (D. Mass. Aug. 21 2019); [ECF No. 230]. The IPPs moved for certification of two classes of consumers who they [*4]  claim were overcharged for Intuniv because of an allegedly anticompetitive settlement agreement between Shire and Actavis ("Defendants"). [ECF No. 146]. Those proposed classes included:

The Nationwide Consumer Class: For the period beginning November 15, 2012, to the present: (A) all persons who purchased brand or generic Intuniv in the United States for personal or household use, and who paid the purchase price themselves; and (B) all persons covered by commercial health insurance who purchased brand Intuniv in the United States for personal or household use, and who paid some of the purchase price pursuant to a co-payment or co-insurance provision.

Illinois Brick Repealer Class: For the period beginning November 15, 2012, to the present, all persons in Arizona, California, Florida, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia: (A) who paid the purchase price themselves for brand or generic Intuniv in the United States for personal or household use; and (B) [*5]  all persons covered by commercial health insurance who purchased brand Intuniv in the United States for personal or household use, and who paid some of the purchase price pursuant to a co-payment or co-insurance provision.

Id. at 1-2]. The Court determined that the IPPs had not provided a workable plan to exclude a large number of uninjured class members, including roughly 25,000 brand loyalists, several thousand coupon-using class members, and a de minimis number of potential class members who purchased Intuniv only after reaching their out-of-pocket maximums. [ECF No. 230 at 16-17]. The Court therefore refused to certify either of the two proposed classes. [Id. at 18].

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 192468 *; 2019 WL 5789837

In re INTUNIV ANTITRUST LITIGATION (Indirect Purchasers)

Prior History: In re Intuniv Antitrust Litig., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 141643 (D. Mass., Aug. 21, 2019)

CORE TERMS

brand, consumers, class certification, co-insurance, reconsideration motion, named plaintiff, uninjured, proposed class, generic, class member, interlocutory, reconsideration, district court, co-pay, fail to demonstrate, certify, newly