In Re Levaquin Products Liability Litigation
752 F. Supp. 2d 1071
D. Minnesota2010Background
- Phase 1 Minnesota plaintiffs allege Levaquin causes tendon injuries and that warnings were inadequate and progressively updated over time.
- Levaquin is a fluoroquinolone with known tendon injury risks, especially for the elderly or those on corticosteroids.
- Defendants allegedly funded/flacked a flawed Ingenix epidemiology study to downplay tendon risks and delay regulatory action.
- Label warnings were strengthened in 2002 and again in 2007 and a 2008 FDA black box warning was added; plaintiffs argue the labels remained inadequate.
- Plaintiffs allege mass marketing created public impact; they seek damages and various equitable and statutory remedies.
- The court considers motions for partial judgment on the pleadings across multiple Phase 1 cases, addressing UTPA, CFA, FAA, SCHPCFA, DTPA, warranty, and unjust enrichment claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Public-benefit requirement for private consumer-protection claims | Levaquin misrepresentations benefit the public | No public benefit since damages-only suit | Claims survive for public benefit |
| SCHPCFA claims for under-62 individuals | All Phase 1 plaintiffs can pursue SCHPCFA | Only individuals 62+ eligible | Sharon Johnson's SCHPCFA claim dismissed; others survive |
| Implied warranty claims preemption by strict products liability | Implied warranty viable alongside strict liability | Implied warranty subsumed | Dismissal of implied warranty claim granted |
| Express warranty viability amid merger with implied warranty | Express warranties alleged via marketing and claims of safety | Warranties either merged or not properly pleaded | Express warranty claims survive |
| Unjust enrichment when legal remedies exist | Equitable relief available alongside law | Adequate legal remedies exist; must be dismissed | Unjust enrichment claim survives as alternative pleading |
Key Cases Cited
- Wishnatsky v. Rovner, 433 F.3d 608 (8th Cir. 2006) (motion to dismiss standard; pleading requirements)
- Ly v. Nystrom, 615 N.W.2d 302 (Minn. 2000) (Private AG Statute requires public benefit)
- Collins v. Minnesota School of Business, Inc., 655 N.W.2d 320 (Minn. 2003) (public-benefit inquiry under Private AG Statute)
- Collins v. Minn. Sch. of Bus., Inc., 636 N.W.2d 816 (Minn. Ct. App. 2001) (related public-benefit analysis)
- Farr v. Armstrong Rubber Co., 179 N.W.2d 64 (Minn. 1970) (warranty scope and relation to merchantability)