Pennsylvania Judge Tosses 173 Zostavax Complaints, Issues Warning to Plaintiffs Counsel
Judge Harvey Bartle III said that the complaints were "full of boilerplate language unrelated to the individual case," and were "the antitheses of how a proper federal complaint should be drafted."
May 03, 2019 at 03:05 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The Legal Intelligencer
A federal judge has tossed 173 complaints from the litigation over the shingles vaccine Zostavax, and in doing so offered some stern words for the attorneys who filed the complaints.
U.S. District Judge Harvey Bartle III of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Thursday issued a five-page order tossing nearly one-third of the complaints from the 542-strong multidistrict litigation, saying that the complaints were “full of boilerplate language unrelated to the individual case,” and were “the antitheses of how a proper federal complaint should be drafted.”
The ruling tossed the plaintiffs' fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, negligent misrepresentation, consumer fraud and state consumer fraud violation claims with prejudice, and dismissed all the remaining claims, including unjust enrichment, breach of warranty, failure to warn, strict liability and negligence, without prejudice.
Although that means the plaintiffs can re-file complaints on the remaining claims, Bartle issued a warning to the plaintiffs attorneys about filing similar complaints.
“The one-size-fits-all approach of plaintiffs' counsel produced allegations that are absurd on their face as to every plaintiff. Notably, plaintiffs state that they were induced to obtain a Zostavax vaccination by advertisements that began running years after plaintiffs were inoculated,” Bartle said, adding at the end of the opinion, “We call … this court's order to the special attention of plaintiffs' counsel and urge them not to repeat the same behavior exhibited here with respect to any future filings in this multidistrict litigation.”
The order specifically mentioned New York firm Marc J. Bern & Partners, and said no attorney at the firm could file a complaint or amended complaint that contained more than 40 pages.
“The court will dismiss without prejudice on its own motion any such complaint or amended complaint hereinafter filed that exceeds 40 pages,” Bartle said.
Marc J. Bern did not immediately return a call seeking comment.
In re Zostavax (Zoster Vaccine Live) Product Liability Litigation hinges on claims that the drug, which was manufactured by Merck—a defendant in the case—caused elevated blood pressure, headaches, eye injury and in some cases, death. The drug is meant to treat shingles, which is a rash on the side of the face or body, usually affecting people older than 50. In 2006, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved Zostavax as a shingles vaccine.
Lawsuits were filed in Pennsylvania state court, and federal courts in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, Wisconsin and Massachusetts. However, the litigation was eventually consolidated into a multidistrict litigation before Bartle.
According to the list of pending MDLs, as of April 15, 542 actions were pending on the litigation's docket.
Attorney Mark Sadaka of Englewood, New Jersey-based Sadaka Associates, who, along with Michael Goetz of Morgan & Morgan in Tampa, Florida, are co-lead plaintiffs counsel in the litigation, said the cases were only dismissed because of the style of the pleadings.
“The dismissal of the complaints have nothing to do with the merits of the claims, but the pleading style of one particular firm,” Sadaka said. “The cases that were dismissed were dismissed because their complaints were too long. Judge Bartle has given the firm opportunity to amend the pleadings to conform with the federal rules.”
Goetz added that Bartle previously dismissed fraud claims from the litigation, and so the decision to dismiss some of the claims with prejudice is not expected to have a significant impact on the litigation.
“At least the leadership of the MDL has not been pursuing that theory of liability. The case we've been pursuing is failure to warn and negligence design defect,” he said. “It doesn't in any way derail the theories of liability we've been pursuing.”
Venable LLP attorney Dino Sangiamo, who is representing both Merck and McKesson, did not return a call seeking comment.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLitigators of the Week: A Trade Secret Win at the ITC for Viking Over Promising Potential Liver Drug
Litigation Leaders: Mark Jones of Nelson Mullins on Helping Clients Assemble ‘Dream Teams’
Litigators of the Week: An Early Knockout Win in the Decongestant MDL
Litigators of the Week: The Delaware Supreme Court Turns Its Spotlight on Advance Notice Bylaws
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250