In re Skelaxin (metaxalone) Antitrust Litigation
299 F.R.D. 555
E.D. Tenn.2014Background
- Two putative classes were at issue: End Payors (indirect purchasers seeking damages and injunction) and Indirect Purchasers (nationwide and state-subclass indirect purchasers).
- End Payors defined multiple damages subclasses plus an injunction class, all alleging overcharge from Skelaxin/metaxalone due to Defendants’ alleged anticompetitive conduct delaying generics.
- Indirect Purchasers asserted nationwide and four state subclasses, seeking antitrust and unjust enrichment claims under multiple states’ laws.
- The court held oral argument and ultimately denied class certification for both End Payors and Indirect Purchasers, citing ascertainability and choice-of-law/predominance issues.
- A related motion to strike expert testimony and for partial summary judgment by End Payors was denied without prejudice due to lack of certification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ascertainability of End Payors damages class | End Payors contends class is defined by objective criteria and administratively feasible. | Defendants contend class requires transaction-by-transaction determinations and price-risk allocations, making ascertainability impossible. | Denied; End Payors not ascertainable due to transaction-level determinations. |
| Comcast compatibility of damages model with liability theory | Rausser model provides class-wide damages aligned with the alleged theory of injury. | Model impermissibly includes non-end-payors and does not tie damages to the proposed theory, violating Comcast. | Denied; damages model not consistent with liability theory under Comcast. |
| Nationwide Indirect Purchasers class—choice of law and predominance | TTPA claims can be pursued nationwide; Freeman supports broad reach of TTPA. | Choice-of-law and predominance require applying laws of multiple states; class would be unmanageable. | Denied; nationwide class not certified; choice-of-law analysis favors non-Tennessee law and state-specific subclasses present manageability issues. |
| State-subclass viability and conflict-of-law analysis | State-subclasses can avoid cross-state conflicts by applying each state's law where injury occurred. | Even state-subclasses face predominance/ascertainability challenges and must be evaluated under Restatement §145 conflicts. | Denied; state subclasses not certified due to anticipated conflicts and lack of manageable framework. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pilgrim v. Universal Health Card, LLC, 660 F.3d 943 (6th Cir.2011) (choice-of-law analysis required for nationwide class; multi-state differences hinder certification)
- Relafen Antitrust Litig., 221 F.R.D. 260 (D. Mass. 2004) (multiple states; variations in state law affect predominance; some states omitted)
- Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 133 S. Ct. 1426 (2013) (damages model must be consistent with liability theory for Rule 23(b)(3) predominance)
- In re Whirlpool Corp. Front-Loading Washer Prods. Liab. Litig., 722 F.3d 838 (6th Cir.2013) (some merits inquiry may be necessary; rigorous analysis required but not a trial on merits)
- In re St. Jude Medical, Inc., 425 F.3d 1116 (8th Cir.2005) (choice-of-law analysis required; due process constraints on transferring law across states)
- AT&T Mobility LLC v. Aio Optronics Corp., 707 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir.2013) (extraterritorial application of state laws; due process and significant contacts in choice-of-law)
- Smyrna v. Mun. Gas Auth. of Ga., 723 F.3d 640 (6th Cir.2013) (Restatement §145 principles; considerations for conflicts and choice-of-law)
- In re Flonase Antitrust Litig., 815 F. Supp. 2d 867 (E.D. Pa.2011) (state consumer protection/antitrust law variations affect class certification)