Davids v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp.
977 F. Supp. 2d 171
E.D.N.Y2013Background
- Davids sued Novartis for BRONJ linked to Zometa, alleging inadequate warnings, breach of implied warranty, and negligence.
- A jury found in Davids’s favor on all three claims in 2012, awarding $450,000 compensatory and $10,000,000 punitive damages.
- Davids died after trial; Newman moved to substitute as Executor, which the court granted unopposed.
- The court proceeded to address four post-trial motions: mistrial over alleged extrinsic dictionary material, reduction of punitive damages, interest on judgment, and substitution of plaintiff.
- The court previously held NJ punitive damages law applies, with a 5:1 cap pursuant to New Jersey Punitive Damages Act and NJPLA immunities when FDA labeling is compliant.
- The court ultimately granted substitution, denied mistrial, reduced punitive damages to $900,000, and denied prejudgment interest on punitive damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mistrial due to extrinsic juror material | Davids/Pltf contends jurors used extrinsic material from a dictionary | Novartis argues juror misconduct occurred, warranting new trial | Mistrial/new trial denied; evidence too thin and hearsay-based |
| Whether punitive damages should be reduced | Argues five-times compensatory is appropriate under NJPDA | Challenges the ratio under due process and NJPDA | Punitive damages reduced to $900,000 (double compensatory) after due process and NJPDA analysis |
| Prejudgment interest on punitive damages | New Jersey law permits prejudgment interest on judgments | New York law applies or interest on punitive damages disallowed pre-judgment | Prejudgment interest denied on punitive damages under New Jersey law |
| Substitution of plaintiff | Davids’s estate substituted as plaintiff is appropriate | No opposition; substitution not contested | Substitution granted; Ian Newman appointed Executor |
Key Cases Cited
- Campbell v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 538 U.S. 408 (Sup. Ct. 2003) (three Gore guideposts for punitive damages; due process limits)
- BMW of North America v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (Sup. Ct. 1996) (three guideposts for excessiveness of punitive damages)
- Fagan v. AmerisourceBergen Corp., 356 F.Supp.2d 198 (E.D.N.Y. 2004) (reprehensibility and deterrence in punitive damages analysis)
- Payne v. Jones, 711 F.3d 85 (2d Cir. 2013) (re ratio guidance when compensatory damages are substantial)
- Kemp v. American Tel. & Tel. Co., 393 F.3d 1354 (11th Cir. 2004) (weight given to remedial comparison in punitive analysis)
- DLC Mgmt. Corp. v. Town of Hyde Park, 163 F.3d 124 (2d Cir. 1998) (new trial standard; appellate deference to jury verdicts)
- Belmont Condominium Ass’n, Inc. v. Geibel, 74 A.3d 10 (N.J. App. Div. 2013) (prejudgment interest on punitive damages not permitted in NJ)
- Saffos v. Avaya Inc., 16 A.3d 1076 (N.J. App. Div. 2011) (N.J. factors for punitive damages are akin to Gore guideposts)
- Song v. Ives Labs., Inc., 957 F.2d 1041 (2d Cir. 1992) (new trial standard; weighing evidence for Rule 59)