Name of Assigned Judge Sitting Judge if Other or Magistrate Judge Amy J. St. Eve than Assigned Judge
CASE TITLE DOCKET ENTRY TEXT
The Court denies Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment . O[ For further details see text below.] Notices mailed by Judicial staff.
Plaintiff Jo Belle Baldonado moves for summary judgment on certain affirmative defenses that Defendant Wyeth pleads in its Master Answer. (R. 64.) For the following reasons, the motion is denied.
Plaintiff used certain postmenapausal hormone therapy products ("HT") from 1996 to 1998. In September of 1998, Plaintiff was diagnosed with hormone-receptor positive breast cancer. On June 3, 2004, Plaintiff filed this action against Defendant and others, alleging that the HT manufactured by Defendant caused Plaintiff to develop breast cancer. Plaintiff asserts claims of negligence, strict products liability, breach of warranty, negligent misrepresentation, and fraud. (R. 1 at 15-57, First Am. Personal Injury Compl. ("Amended Complaint").)
Defendants removed the action to this Court on June 28, 2004, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441 and 1446. (Id. at 1-7, Not. of Removal.) Thereafter, on July 27, 2004, Defendant filed an Answer to the Amended Complaint, denying that Defendant's products caused Plaintiff's breast cancer and contending that the products were appropriately tested, labeled, and marketed. (See R. 9, Answer ("Ans.").) Defendant pleads thirty-three affirmative defenses in its Answer. (See id. at 56-63.)
On September 8, 2004, the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation (the "MDL Panel") entered an order conditionally transferring this action to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas (the "MDL Court"), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with over two hundred similar hormone therapy actions. (R. 13, Conditional Transfer Order, at 1 (citing In re Prempro Prods. Liab. Litig., 254 F. Supp. 2d 1366 (J.P.M.L. 2003) (designating transferee court for individual, class action, and other federal cases arising out of the sale or use of prescription hormone therapy medications).) As relevant to the present motion, Defendant filed a Master Answer in the MDL Court. (See R. 1942, In re Prepro Prods. Liab. Litig., MDL No. 1507 (E.D. Ark.), Master Ans. to Am. Master Compl.)
On January 26, 2011, following more than seven years of litigation in the MDL Court, the MDL Panel remanded the action to this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407. (R. 21, Corrected Remand Order at 1-2.) On October 12, 2011, Plaintiff moved for summary judgment on twenty-three affirmative defenses that Defendant pleads in its Master Answer. The case was reassigned to this Court on January 25, 2012.
Summary judgment is appropriate "if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A genuine dispute as to any material fact exists if "the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 2510, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202 (1986). In determining summary judgment motions, "facts must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party only if there is a 'genuine' dispute as to those facts." Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380, 127 S. Ct. 1769, 167 L. Ed. 2d 686 (2007). The party seeking summary judgment has the initial burden of establishing that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1986). After "a properly supported motion for summary judgment is made, the adverse party must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255 (internal quotation omitted). ...