History
  • No items yet
midpage
M.M. v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC
2016 IL App (1st) 151909
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2016
Read the full case

Background

  • Eight minor plaintiffs (and their mothers) from six states sued GSK in Cook County alleging Paxil caused congenital birth defects; two plaintiff pairs reside in Illinois, others in FL, CO, VA, MI, and WI.
  • Plaintiffs allege design defect, failure to warn, negligence, and warranty claims tied to GSK’s conduct, including alleged manipulation/failure to analyze clinical-trial pregnancy outcomes and inadequate labeling.
  • GSK moved to dismiss out-of-state plaintiffs for lack of personal jurisdiction (both general and specific); trial court denied the motion as to specific jurisdiction based on GSK’s Illinois contacts.
  • Relevant contacts: GSK contracted with ~17 Illinois physicians to run 18–21 Paxil clinical trials (1985–2003), employed sales/marketing staff in Illinois, and maintained an agent for service.
  • Plaintiffs claimed Illinois trial data were aggregated into multicenter analyses informing Paxil warnings; they alleged the Illinois trials contributed to the allegedly defective labeling that caused their injuries.
  • Trial court found plaintiffs made a prima facie showing of specific jurisdiction; appellate court affirmed.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Whether Illinois has specific jurisdiction over GSK GSK purposefully availed itself of Illinois by contracting to run multiple Paxil clinical trials here and plaintiffs’ claims arise from those trials and resulting labels Trials in many jurisdictions; Illinois trials are a small fraction and plaintiffs were not injured or prescribed Paxil in Illinois—no sufficient nexus Affirmed: prima facie showing met; GSK conceded purposeful contacts and failed to rebut that plaintiffs’ claims arose from Illinois activities
Whether GSK purposefully directed activities at Illinois Contracting with 17 Illinois investigators and conducting repeated trials over two decades shows purposeful availment Contended contacts were insufficiently tied to plaintiffs and were routine multicenter activities Held: purposeful availment established (GSK conceded contacts and contracts supported availment)
Whether plaintiffs’ claims ‘‘arise out of or relate to’’ GSK’s Illinois contacts Illinois trial data were aggregated into overall analyses and GSK failed to track/analyze pregnancy outcomes from Illinois trials, contributing to inadequate warnings Plaintiffs were not trial subjects in Illinois; trials weren’t designed to study pregnancy effects; GSK produced no uncontradicted evidence to negate nexus Held: flexible/lenient ‘‘arising from/related to’’ standard satisfied on prima facie showing; GSK failed to rebut
Whether exercising jurisdiction would be reasonable under due process Illinois has an interest (trials conducted here), litigation already proceeding in Illinois, avoiding piecemeal suits; burdens are not dispositive Burden on GSK and witnesses; evidence located out-of-state Held: exercise of jurisdiction is reasonable given forum interest, risk of piecemeal litigation, and lack of strong countervailing burdens on GSK

Key Cases Cited

  • Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (2014) (limits general jurisdiction; corporation is "at home" primarily where incorporated or principal place of business)
  • Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985) (specific-jurisdiction principles: purposeful availment and nexus to suit)
  • World‑Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (1980) (due-process limitations on personal jurisdiction and reasonableness factors)
  • Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 465 U.S. 770 (1984) (forum may exercise jurisdiction based on defendant’s regular business in forum even if plaintiff’s injury occurred elsewhere)
  • International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945) (minimum contacts standard for personal jurisdiction)
  • Russell v. SNFA, 2013 IL 113909 (Ill. 2013) (Illinois Supreme Court recognizing lenient/ flexible standard for "arise out of/relate to" in specific jurisdiction analysis)
Read the full case

Case Details

Case Name: M.M. v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC
Court Name: Appellate Court of Illinois
Date Published: Aug 26, 2016
Citation: 2016 IL App (1st) 151909
Docket Number: 1-15-1909
Court Abbreviation: Ill. App. Ct.