Again, these are still the early stage maneuvers, in the overall incretin mimetic MDL litigation, but these five cases, for now, will not be shoved onto the federal trial court docket in San Diego. Overall, it matters only slightly to Kenilworth, but here is the opinion (as a 31 page PDF file), and the court's reasoning:
. . . ."[T]here is no indication that Congress’s purpose in enacting CAFA was to strip plaintiffs of their ordinary role as masters of their complaint and allow defendants to treat separately filed actions as one action regardless of plaintiffs’ choice." Scimone, 720 F.3d at 885; see Tanoh, 561 F.3d at 953. . . .
"In this case, concluding that plaintiffs’ claims fall outside CAFA’s removal provisions is not absurd, but rather is consistent with. . . the well-established rule that plaintiffs, as masters of their complaint, may choose their forum by selecting state over federal court . . . ."
Incretin mimetics, like Merck's Januvia® (sitagliptin phosphate), are suspected by some medical practitioners and researchers, of being associated with increased risks of pancreatitis -- and perhaps even certain cancer risks. But "suspected" is the key word, there. As of the moment, there appears to be no gold standard, independently rigorous study linking the increased risk of cancer claimed by some, to any incretin mimetic regimen of any particular drug manufacturer. And, while it is true that judicial resources are often well-economized in federal MDL proceedings, there hasn't yet been a binding determination that these cases (over 900 of them, according to page 22 of the just filed SEC Form 10-Q) are appropriately similar -- to allow for an imposed MDL, on all plaintiffs.
All in all, a perfect post-workout Sunday -- so. . . onward we go.
No comments:
Post a Comment