Gross v. Pfizer, Inc., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11154

Plaintiff ingested a generic metoclopramide manufactured by PLIVA and alleges injuries.
Plaintiff did not ingest Pfizer/Wyeth/Schwarz brand metoclopramide.
Claims against brand-name manufacturers were dismissed under Maryland law.
Supreme Court's Mensing decision held generic warnings are preempted by federal law.
Court lifted stay to brief Mensing impact, then granted PLIVA's Rule 12 motion for judgment on the pleadings.
Court concludes state-law claims against PLIVA are preempted and dismisses them.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Post-Mensing viability of PLIVA claims	Gross argues some claims survive Mensing.	Mensing preempts all state-law failure-to-warn claims against generics.	All PLIVA claims preempted; dismissal affirmed.
Continuing to sell metoclopramide（inadequate warnings）	Plaintiff can plead negligence for continued sale with inadequate labeling.	Mensing precludes such claims against generics.	Preempted; no surviving negligence claims.
Concealment of safety information	Concealment claims may survive if not tied to labeling changes.	Claims preempted when based on labeling or FDA-related concealment.	Preempted under Mensing.
Testing/inspecting and 2004/2009 label-change arguments	Claims relate to 2004 label deviation not requiring new warnings.	Mensing preempts such claims; amendment rejected.	Claims related to 2004 labeling changes dismissed; amendment denied.

Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs' Legal Comm., 531 U.S. 341 (U.S. 2001) (federal duties and preemption principles in labeling context)
Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U.S. 555 (U.S. 2009) (federal labeling duties and preemption of certain warnings)
PLIVA, Inc. v. Mensing, 131 S. Ct. 2567 (2011) (federal preemption of state-law failure-to-warn claims for generics)