Third Amended Master Long Form Complaint - Dispute Resolution ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Individually and d/b/a IVAX Pharmaceuticals, Inc. , Bristol Myers Squibb Co., Individually andd/b/a Apothecon, Inc., Apothecon, Inc., Invamed Inc., King Pharmaceuticals Inc., Individuallyand d/b/a Alpharma Inc., f/k/a A.L. Pharma Inc. and a/k/a Alpharma-Barre National, andRichmond Pharmaceuticals, Inc. manufacture and/or sell, or in the past have manufactured andsold, certain prescription drug products—known variously as metoclopramide, genericmetoclopramide, or metoclopramide HCl,—designed and calculated to be generic versions, orcopies in all medically material respects, of the prescription drug known as Reglan. Thesedefendants may be referred to collectively, from time to time, as the GENERIC DEFENDANTS.63. All of the defendants identified herein may be referred to collectively, from timeto time, as the DRUG COMPANY DEFENDANTS.64. Pursuant to Case Management Order No. 1 in this litigation, service of process ofany abbreviated complaints (―Short <strong>Form</strong> <strong>Complaint</strong>s‖) upon Defendants shall be effective whensent by registered U.S. mail, return receipt requested, to the agents of service listed. Should anagent of service not be provided, Plaintiffs must serve Defendant through service of processpursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure and/or The Hague Convention.Inaddition, a copy of each notice transmitted to the Defendant in the foregoing manner shall beprovided to Lead and Liaison Counsel for Defendants. Service will be effective ten (10) daysafter mailing.II.Jurisdiction65. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all of the above paragraphs.66. At all times relevant hereto, the DRUG COMPANY DEFENDANTS were in thebusiness of researching, designing, formulating, compounding, testing, manufacturing,producing, processing, assembling, inspecting, distributing, marketing, labeling, promoting,- 32 -Case ID: 100101997
packaging and/or advertising the pharmaceutical drugs known as Reglan, metoclopramide HCland/or metoclopramide in the State of Pennsylvania and the County of Philadelphia.67. At all times relevant hereto, the DRUG COMPANY DEFENDANTS had officesin Pennsylvania and/or regularly solicited and transacted business 3 in the State of Pennsylvaniaand the County of Philadelphia.The DRUG COMPANY DEFENDANTS carried on acontinuous and systematic part of their business in Pennsylvania and Philadelphia County. Inaddition, the DRUG COMPANY DEFENDANTS reasonably expected that their respectiveproducts, Reglan or metoclopramide, would be used or consumed in Pennsylvania andPhiladelphia County.68. Defendant Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., and therefore now Defendant BarrPharmaceuticals, Inc, Barr Laboratories, Inc., Duramed Pharmaceuticals Inc., and PLIVA USA,Inc., is a resident of Pennsylvania because its principal place of business is in Pennsylvania.69. Defendant United Research Laboratories, Inc., a/k/a URL PHARMPRO, LLCd/b/a URL Pharma is a resident of Pennsylvania because its principal place of business is inPhiladelphia, Pennsylvania.70. Defendant Mutual Pharmaceutical Company, Inc. is a resident of Pennsylvaniabecause its principal place of business is in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.3 Pursuant to 42 Pa. Const. Stat. § 5322, BRAND NAME DEFENDANTS and GENERIC DEFENDANTS havetransacted business in Pennsylvania and Philadelphia County by directly, or indirectly through an agent, doing aseries of similar acts for the purpose of thereby realizing pecuniary benefit, doing a single act for the purpose ofthereby realizing pecuniary benefit, shipping merchandise directly or indirectly into Pennsylvania and PhiladelphiaCounty, engaging in business, owning, using or possessing real property, contracting to supply services or things,causing harm or tortuous injury by an act or omission outside Pennsylvania and Philadelphia County, acceptingelection or appointment or exercise of powers as a director or officer of a corporation, making application to anygovernment unit for any certificate, license, permit, registration or similar instrument or authorization or exercisingany such instrument or authorization, committing any violation within the jurisdiction of Pennsylvania of anystatute, home rule charter, local ordinance or resolution, or rule or regulation promulgated thereunder by anygovernment unit or of any order of court or other government unit.- 33 -Case ID: 100101997
Page 1 and 2: IN RE ::COURT OF COMMON PLEASPHILAD
Page 4: Sears Tower - Suite 5500Chicago, IL
Page 7 and 8: 4 Penn Center, Suite 8001600 John F
Page 9 and 10: Northstar Rx LLC4971 Southridge Blv
Page 11 and 12: Richmond Pharmaceuticals, Inc.3510
Page 13 and 14: Jersey 07940. Defendant regularly c
Page 15 and 16: 12. Defendant Baxter Healthcare Cor
Page 17 and 18: with process via The Hague Conventi
Page 19 and 20: Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. on Decemb
Page 21 and 22: Case Management Order No. 1, Defend
Page 23 and 24: 34. Defendant Watson Laboratories,
Page 25 and 26: through its registered agent for se
Page 27 and 28: 47. Defendant VistaPharm, Inc. is a
Page 29 and 30: labeling, and design of metoclopram
Page 31: metoclopramide not yet known by Pla
Page 35 and 36: 76. In addition, Philadelphia Count
Page 37 and 38: 87. The ―indications‖ (recommen
Page 39 and 40: e satisfied that the proposed label
Page 41 and 42: prescribed by physicians, most of w
Page 43 and 44: exercise of reasonable care should
Page 45 and 46: 113. Since 1985, GENERIC DEFENDANTS
Page 47 and 48: e. independently monitor the sales
Page 49 and 50: disfigurement, disability, pain and
Page 51 and 52: care industry and consumers, includ
Page 53 and 54: associated with the ordinary, expec
Page 55 and 56: 146. The Reglan and/or generic meto
Page 57 and 58: 158. Each of the DRUG COMPANY DEFEN
Page 59 and 60: 22. They failed to implement proper
Page 61 and 62: 166. As lawful consumers of Reglan
Page 63 and 64: duration of use - confirming they w
Page 65 and 66: involuntary movements, aggravation
Page 67 and 68: DEFENDANTS professed to Plaintiffs
Page 69 and 70: COUNT VIII - UNFAIR AND DECEPTIVE T
Page 71 and 72: loss: the difference between the pr
Page 73 and 74: 214. BRAND NAME DEFENDANTS knew, or
Page 75 and 76: 217. Alternatively or in addition,
Page 77 and 78: 224. In addition, DRUG COMPANY DEFE
Page 79 and 80: 237. The representatives of Deceden
Page 81 and 82: 248. Plaintiffs also allege that th
Page 83 and 84:
d) They continued to promote the sa
Page 85:
(G)Such other relief as is deemed j
show all

Third Amended Master Long Form Complaint - Dispute Resolution ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?