Narrative Opinion Summary
This case involves the plaintiff, who developed tardive dyskinesia after using Reglan® and its generic counterpart metoclopramide, pursuing litigation against the manufacturer, PLIVA, Inc. After filing her lawsuit in Missouri state court in 2010, the case faced numerous procedural challenges, including a dismissal without prejudice due to a lack of personal jurisdiction as clarified by the Supreme Court's Daimler decision. The plaintiff re-filed in the Eastern District of Kentucky in 2015. PLIVA moved for judgment on the pleadings, claiming the action was time-barred. The court denied this motion, determining that neither Kentucky's nor Missouri's Savings Statutes applied, though it considered the potential for equitable tolling. Under the five-factor test from Andrews v. Orr, the court found that equitable tolling might be appropriate given the plaintiff's diligence and the absence of prejudice to PLIVA. The court also distinguished this case from Ashford, emphasizing the lack of a clear forum selection clause. Ultimately, PLIVA's motion for judgment on the pleadings was denied, allowing the plaintiff's claim to proceed, with the court recognizing the rare but applicable nature of equitable tolling in this instance.
Legal Issues Addressed
Equitable Tollingsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court considered the applicability of equitable tolling, using a five-factor test to assess whether the plaintiff's case should proceed despite potential statute of limitations issues.
Reasoning: Equitable tolling may be applied when a claimant has diligently pursued judicial remedies despite filing a defective pleading or has been misled by the adversary’s misconduct...
Judgment on the Pleadings under Rule 12(c)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings was evaluated under the standard of Rule 12(b)(6), requiring the court to accept the plaintiff's well-pleaded allegations as true.
Reasoning: Defendant PLIVA, Inc. filed for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that the lawsuit is time-barred. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c), the motion is evaluated similarly to a Rule 12(b)(6) motion...
Personal Jurisdiction Post-Daimlersubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court dismissed the initial case without prejudice due to lack of personal jurisdiction following the Supreme Court's Daimler decision, prompting the plaintiff to re-file in a different jurisdiction.
Reasoning: Nicely's lawsuit was initially dismissed without prejudice due to the court's lack of personal jurisdiction following the Daimler case.
Statute of Limitations and Savings Statutessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court evaluated whether the plaintiff's complaint was time-barred or protected by Kentucky's or Missouri's Savings Statutes, ultimately finding both statutes inapplicable.
Reasoning: The court found both states' Savings Statutes inapplicable; Nicely did not invoke Missouri’s statute, which the court treated as waived in favor of PLIVA.