291 F.R.D. 13
D. Mass.2013Background
- Forest marketed Celexa and Lexapro; alleged off-label promotion for minors 2001–2005; FDA approved only for adults (Celexa pediatric denial).
- MDL consolidated pretrial proceedings across Jaeckal, Palumbo, and Wilcox actions; several related actions dismissed or amended.
- Plaintiffs seek class actions: Celexa class (under-18 use) and Lexapro class (under-18 use) across states; Wilcox seeks California UCL and FAL certification.
- Choice-of-law analysis required Missouri home-state law for Jaeckal and Palumbo, New York law for Palumbo; California law later applied to Wilcox claims.
- Court denied class certification for both Jaeckal/Palumbo and Wilcox; determined lack of predominance or superiority under Rule 23 in various contexts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Choice of law governs class treatment | Jaeckal/Palumbo: Missouri law; home-state protections apply | Forest: applicable home-state law; conflicts render class infeasible | Home-state law applies; Missouri/New York analyses favor home-state law |
| Class certification viability (Jaeckal/Palumbo) | Common questions predominate; consumer-protection claims fit class | State-law variation defeats common proof; nationwide class unmanageable | Rule 23(b)(3) not satisfied; certification denied |
| Class certification viability (Wilcox) | California UCL/FAL claims meet predominance with common misrepresentation impact | Individualized exposure and deception issues prevent common proof | Predominance not shown; certification denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Elec. Mfg. Co., 313 U.S. 487 (U.S. 1941) (forum-state choice-of-law rules govern diversity actions)
- In re Grand Theft Auto Video Game Consumer Litig., 251 F.R.D. 139 (S.D.N.Y.2008) (multidistrict transfer choice of law considerations)
- Goede v. Aerojet Gen. Corp., 143 S.W.3d 14 (Mo.Ct.App.2004) (Restatement §148/§6 factors for significant relationship)
- S. States Police Benev. Ass’n, Inc. v. First Choice Armor & Equip., Inc., 241 F.R.D. 85 (D. Mass.2007) (home-state consumer protection law preferred for harm to consumers)
- Davis-Miller v. Auto. Club of S. California, 201 Cal.App.4th 106 (Cal.App.2011) (denies class for misrepresentation claims requiring individual proof)
- Padula v. Lilarn Props. Corp., 84 N.Y.2d 519 (N.Y.1994) (interest analysis for choice of law in New York)