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

Jackson v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharms., Inc. (In re Pradaxa Prods. Liab. Litig.)

United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, East St. Louis Division

July 18, 2013, Decided; July 18, 2013, Filed

MDL No. 2385; 3:12-md-02385-DRH-SCW; Case No. 3:12-cv-60004-DRH-SCW

Opinion

ORDER

Herndon, Chief Judge:

I. INTRODUCTION

The above captioned action was filed by the plaintiff, Mark A. Jackson, a citizen of Louisiana for injuries he allegedly suffered as a result of ingesting the prescription drug Pradaxa (dabigatran etexilate). The plaintiff's claims are directed against four defendants, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("BIPI"), Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH ("BII"), Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG ("Pharma KG"), and Bidachem S.p.A. ("Bidachem"), Pending before the Court is a motion to dismiss (Doc. 6) under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). 12(b)(3) and 12(f) filed by BIPI. The three remaining defendants are foreign entities that have not been served and do not appear or join this motion (Doc. 6-1 p. 4 n.6).

BIPI seeks dismissal of all Counts. Specifically, BIPI argues, the Louisiana Products Liability Act ("LPLA") provides the exclusive remedy for the plaintiff's alleged injuries and  [*4] the vast majority of the plaintiff's claims (Counts III - VI, VIII, and X - XIII) are not cognizable under the LPLA. BIPI further contends that any remaining claims should be dismissed as inadequately pled under Iqbal/Twombly and federal/state law. In the alternative, BIPI contends the case should be dismissed based on improper venue. BIPI further argues that the plaintiff's purported class claims should be dismissed, under Rule 12(b)(6), or stricken, under Rule 12(f) (Doc. 6-1 p.2). Finally, BIPI seeks dismissal of any punitive/exemplary damages and/or requests for attorney's fees.

The plaintiff responds arguing that he has provided more than enough information to give BIPI fair notice of his claims and the grounds upon which they rest. The plaintiff further contends the LPLA does not bar his claims because his complaint and all counts contained within that complaint satisfy the federal pleading requirements. In the alternative, in the event the Court determines that any of the plaintiff's allegations are deficient, the plaintiff seeks leave to amend his complaint to correct any deficiencies.

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.

2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100726 *; 2013 WL 3791509

IN RE PRADAXA (DABIGATRAN ETEXILATE) PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. This Document Relates to: MARK A. JACKSON, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND THOSE SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff, v. BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM PHARMA GMHB & CO. KG, BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM INTERNATIONAL GMBH, BIDACHEM S.P.A., Defendants.

Subsequent History: Motion denied by In re Pradaxa (Dabigatran Etexilate) Prods. Liab. Litig., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107629 (S.D. Ill., July 26, 2013)

Prior History: In re Pradaxa (Dabigatran Etexilate) Prods. Liab. Litig., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59843 (S.D. Ill., Apr. 26, 2013)

CORE TERMS

manufacturer, allegations, venue, motion to dismiss, redhibition, plaintiff's claim, Counts, unreasonable danger, contends, attorney's fees, reside, seller, judicial district, express warranty, exemplary, marketed, warnings, economic loss, damages, label, personal jurisdiction, claimant, injuries, bleeds, factual allegations, punitive damages, substantive law, non-manufacturing, ingesting, non-LPLA