In re Vioxx Products Liability Litigation
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2526
| E.D. La. | 2012Background
- MDL involves Vioxx (Rofecoxib); Merck withdrew Vioxx in 2004 after APPROVe trial concerns.
- Commonwealth of Kentucky sued Merck in state court under Kentucky Consumer Protection Act (KCPA), §367.190 et seq., seeking injunctive relief, penalties, and fees.
- Merck removed to federal court asserting CAFA diversity and/or federal question jurisdiction; matter was transferred by JPML to this court for coordination.
- KY action is parens patriae-type, separate from private citizen remedies under §367.220; Kentucky seeks injunctive and civil-penalty relief and declaratory relief.
- Court analyzes CAFA’s class-action definition, minimal-diversity requirements, and federal-question standards to determine removability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| CAFA class action or not | KY argues CAFA does not apply to parens patriae suit; not a class action. | Merck contends parens patriae action fits CAFA class-action framework and is removable. | Not a CAFA class action; CAFA does not apply. |
| Minimal diversity under CAFA | KY citizens lack named-party diversity; no private class representatives. | Merck contends KY citizens are real parties in interest for some relief, creating diversity. | Minimal diversity lacking; no CAFA jurisdiction for removal. |
| Federal-question jurisdiction | Kentucky law claim may implicate federal drug regulation; not a true federal-question claim. | Merck argues substantial federal question via FDA/FDCA obligations and off-label promotion. | No federal-question jurisdiction; Grable exception not satisfied; state-law claim dominates. |
Key Cases Cited
- Caldwell v. Allstate Ins. Co., 536 F.3d 418 (5th Cir.2008) (real-party-in-interest analysis; assesses relief-type by claim)
- CVS Pharmacy, West Virginia ex rel. McGraw v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., 646 F.3d 169 (4th Cir.2011) (parens patriae not CAFA-class-action removable when lacking Rule 23 mechanics)
- Washington v. Chimei Innolux Corp., 659 F.3d 842 (9th Cir.2011) (parens patriae not a CAFA class action absent Rule 23-like mechanics)
- LG Display Co., Ltd. v. Madigan, 665 F.3d 768 (7th Cir.2011) (parens patriae actions not CAFA class actions when no Rule 23 mechanics)
- In re Katrina Canal Litig. Breaches, 524 F.3d 700 (5th Cir.2008) (CAFA scope and class-action definition guidance)