Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
In Re Aredia and Zometa Products Liability Litig.
Citations: 754 F. Supp. 2d 939; 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129382; 2010 WL 4977066Docket: 3-06-MD-1760
Court: District Court, M.D. Tennessee; December 7, 2010; Federal District Court
In the case 754 F.Supp.2d 939 (2010), the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee addressed Plaintiff Robert Foster's lawsuit against Defendant Novartis, alleging that the drugs Aredia and Zometa caused the death of his wife, Betty Foster, due to osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ). The Plaintiff claimed strict liability and negligence under state law. The Court granted Novartis's Motion for Summary Judgment, determining that there was no genuine issue of material fact and that the Defendant was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The court outlined the legal standard for summary judgment, emphasizing that the moving party must demonstrate the absence of a genuine dispute regarding material facts, which can be achieved through affirmative evidence or by showing a lack of support for the non-moving party's claims. The court must view evidence in favor of the non-moving party while noting that trivial evidence would not suffice to avoid summary judgment. Regarding the statute of limitations, the court noted that Tennessee law applies, requiring personal injury actions, including products liability claims, to be filed within one year from when the cause of action accrues. The "discovery rule" applies, meaning the statute of limitations begins when a plaintiff knows or should reasonably know that they have been injured due to the defendant's conduct. Plaintiff admitted that he and his wife were informed about the connection between bisphosphonates and her jaw necrosis during her initial medical visits in July and August 2004. However, the Plaintiff did not file suit until September 15, 2005, which was more than one year later, leading to the conclusion that his claims were time-barred. Plaintiff contends that his claims are not time-barred because a class action against Novartis, filed in December 2004 in the Eastern District of Tennessee, tolled the statute of limitations. This class action (Thorn) was dismissed without prejudice in October 2005, and no class was certified before dismissal. Federal diversity courts apply state law to determine tolling. Plaintiff argues that the initiation of Thorn suspended the statute of limitations for Betty Foster, who would have been a class member, characterizing this as "judicial tolling." However, the Tennessee Supreme Court has not recognized a tolling rule for class actions as argued by Plaintiff. Specifically, the court in Tigg v. Pirelli Tire Corp. declined to adopt a cross-jurisdictional tolling rule, which would pause the statute of limitations in one jurisdiction based on actions in another. The Tennessee Supreme Court's doctrine only applies within the same jurisdiction, allowing tolling for actions in federal court but not across jurisdictions. Consequently, the court ruled that Plaintiff cannot benefit from cross-jurisdictional tolling to extend the Tennessee statute of limitations, leading to the conclusion that Plaintiff's claims are barred as untimely. The court granted Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, dismissing Plaintiff’s claims.