Henry v. Angelini Pharms, Inc.
2:17-cv-02593
E.D. Cal.Mar 31, 2020Background
- Plaintiff Toby Henry, a California resident, took a 50 mg dose of generic trazodone in California in 2015 and alleges he developed priapism and resulting permanent impotence.
- Plaintiff sued Teva (generic manufacturer) and Angelini Pharma and Endo Ventures (brand/Oleptro NDA holders or successors) asserting strict liability, negligence, warranty, negligent misrepresentation, negligence per se, and punitive damages based on allegedly inadequate priapism warnings.
- Plaintiff alleges Oleptro once carried a prominent priapism warning that was later diminished (circa 2012), and that generic manufacturers (including Teva) adopted Oleptro’s weaker labeling.
- Plaintiff asserts Angelini and Endo had contacts with California through marketing/distribution (including an alleged salesman, Scot Van Steenburg, who marketed Oleptro in Los Angeles in 2010–2011).
- Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction (Rule 12(b)(2)); Plaintiff sought in the alternative a transfer to Maryland under 28 U.S.C. § 1631. Plaintiff also moved to strike Angelini’s reply; the court denied that motion as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| General jurisdiction | Angelini and Endo do sufficient continuous business in California to be "at home." | Neither is at home in California; incorporation/principal place control; shipments/marketing alone insufficient. | Dismissal — no general jurisdiction; plaintiffs offered no showing contacts were so "substantial and of such a nature" to render defendants at home. |
| Specific jurisdiction | California is related because defendants marketed Oleptro in California and their conduct (labeling) foreseeably affected generics causing injury here; adduces Van Steenburg’s California sales activity. | Contacts are too attenuated: plaintiff was injured by Teva’s generic in CA, not by defendants; any marketing in CA (2010–2011) is speculative and unrelated to Teva’s later labeling. | Dismissal — no specific jurisdiction; plaintiff failed to show claims arose out of defendants’ forum activities; allegations (LinkedIn-based) were speculative and untethered. |
| Transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1631 | If jurisdiction lacking, transfer to Maryland is appropriate in interest of justice (statute of limitations concerns; Angelini’s principal place in Maryland). | Transfer is improper because transferee must have jurisdiction over all defendants; Maryland may not have jurisdiction over Teva and Endo based only on FDA filings. | Denied — transfer not in interest of justice; unclear Maryland jurisdiction over all defendants and transfer would spawn duplicative litigation. |
| Motion to strike Angelini’s reply | Reply exceeded page limits; should be struck. | Procedural challenge improper basis and would not affect outcome. | Denied as moot — court ignored the reply and reached same result without considering it. |
Key Cases Cited
- International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (established minimum-contacts due process test)
- Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915 (general jurisdiction requires affiliations rendering corporation at home)
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (corporation ordinarily at home only in state of incorporation or principal place)
- Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797 (prima facie showing of jurisdiction on written record)
- Roth v. Garcia Marquez, 942 F.2d 617 (Ninth Circuit three-part specific-jurisdiction test)
- In re W. States Wholesale Nat. Gas Antitrust Litig., 715 F.3d 716 (plaintiff’s burden to establish personal jurisdiction)
- Zeneca Ltd. v. Mylan Pharm., Inc., 173 F.3d 829 (ANDA filings to FDA are government contacts; not basis for state personal jurisdiction)
- Acorda Therapeutics, Inc. v. Mylan Pharms., 817 F.3d 755 (in patent context, ANDA filing may be tied to in-state sales and support jurisdiction)
- Cruz-Aguilera v. I.N.S., 245 F.3d 1070 (factors for deciding transfer under § 1631)
- Rodriguez-Roman v. INS, 98 F.3d 416 (requirements for transfer under § 1631)
- Shapiro v. Bonanza Hotel Co., 185 F.2d 777 (transferee court must have jurisdiction, venue, and amenability to service)
- Mavrix Photo, LLC v. LiveJournal, Inc., 647 F.3d 1213 (burden shifts to defendant to show unreasonableness if plaintiff meets first two jurisdictional prongs)
- Love v. Associated Newspapers, Ltd., 611 F.3d 601 (California long-arm statute coextensive with federal due process)