Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In re Prempro Products Liability Litigation

December 5, 2006

IN RE: PREMPRO PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION
BARBARA D. GRAHAM PLAINTIFF
v.
WYETH, ET AL. DEFENDANTS



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Wm. R. Wilson, Jr. United States District Judge

MDL Docket No. 4:03CV1507-WRW

ORDER

Pending are Defendant Bill Richards's Motion and Supplemental Motion to Quash Service or in the Alternative to Dismiss (Doc. Nos. 27, 32). Plaintiff has responded (Doc. No. 30).

Defendant Bill Richards contends that he should be dismissed because he was not properly served. Alternatively, he asserts that he should be dismissed because he was fraudulently joined and Plaintiff cannot maintain a cause of action against him.

Defendant's arguments, regarding service, are of no consequence -- service can be remedied under the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4. However, in a March 8, 2006 Order,*fn1 I concluded that the pharmaceutical sales representatives were fraudulently joined in this case. Since that Order, I have reviewed Gordon v. Pfizer, Inc.,*fn2 a case from the Northern District of Alabama, which involved similar facts -- and Plaintiff's lawyers. In Gordon, after a thorough analysis of Alabama law, the court concluded that the sales representatives were fraudulently joined and were dismissed.

Based on the March 8, 2006 Order, Defendant Bill Richards's Motion and Supplemental Motion to Quash Service or in the Alternative to Dismiss (Doc. Nos. 27, 32) are GRANTED, and Defendant Richards is DISMISSED.

Regarding the remaining sales representatives in this case, it seems to me that they were effectively dismissed by the March 8, 2006 Order. The Order reads:

Accordingly, I find that there is no possibility that Plaintiff can establish a claim against the sales representatives under the AEMLD. I also adopt the Bloodsworth Court's analysis regarding the non-AEMLD claims and find that Plaintiff's fraud claim lacks specificity.

Accordingly, Defendants Bill Blount, Walter Williams III, Jennifer Andrews, and Charles Payne are DISMISSED.

IT IS SO ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.