Rader v. Teva Parenteral Medicines, Inc.
276 F.R.D. 524
D. Nev.2011Background
- Plaintiff Charles Anthony Rader, Jr. filed a putative class action in Nevada state court on Feb 26, 2010, asserting claims against Propofol manufacturers/sellers for injury from unsafe injection practices.
- Defendants removed the case to federal court on May 28, 2010.
- Plaintiff’s claims include strict product liability, implied warranty, negligence, and Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act violations.
- Plaintiff moved to certify a class of approximately 60,000 former patients who received anesthesia at ECSN or DSEC between Mar 2004 and Jan 11, 2008.
- SNHD notifications in 2008 informed former patients they were at risk and recommended testing for blood-borne diseases; letters did not identify specific exposed individuals.
- Plaintiff bankruptcy filing under Chapter 13 occurred on Feb 25, 2011, with no indication the trustee abandoned the claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the proposed class satisfies Rule 23 requirements. | Rader argues common questions predominate and a class action is superior. | Defining the class requires individualized determinations, defeating certification. | Denied; class not certified. |
| Whether Plaintiff adequately represents the class under Rule 23(a)(4). | Plaintiff asserts adequate representation for costs of testing. | Plaintiff lacks standing due to bankruptcy; conflicts of interest. | Denied; Plaintiff lacks standing and is inadequate. |
| Whether causation can be shown on a classwide basis under Rule 23(b)(3). | There are common causation issues tied to exposure risk. | Causation is individualized and cannot be proven classwide. | Denied; causation not amenable to classwide proof. |
| Whether damages, especially testing costs, can be adjudicated on a classwide basis. | Claims seek damages for testing costs rather than emotional distress. | Nevada does not recognize a standalone testing-cost claim; damages are individualized. | Denied; emotional distress-like damages require individualized proof; not suitable for class treatment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gen. Tel. Co. of Sw. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147 (U.S. 1982) (foundation for Rule 23 commonality and superiority analysis)
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (S. Ct. 2011) (rigorous analysis required; common questions must predominate)
- Hanon v. Dataproducts Corp., 976 F.2d 497 (9th Cir. 1992) (standard for rule 23 adequacy and class certification)
- In re Wal-Mart Wage & Hour Emp. Practices Litig., No. 2:06-CV-00225, 2008 WL 3179315 (D. Nev. 2008) (central to class definition and ascertainability; discussion cited in opinion)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 339 F.3d 294 (5th Cir. 2003) (emotional distress damages not easily calculable for class actions)
- O’Sullivan v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 319 F.3d 732 (5th Cir. 2003) (damages focus on individual facts; class action risk of fragmentation)
- Castano v. Am. Tobacco Co., 84 F.3d 734 (5th Cir. 1996) (class action predominance and manageability concerns)
- In re Agent Orange Prod. Liab. Litig., 818 F.2d 145 (2d Cir. 1987) (causation proof must be classwide or resolvable by common evidence)
- Back Doctors Ltd. v. Metro. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 637 F.3d 827 (7th Cir. 2011) (illustrates adequacy and conflicts considerations for class representatives)