Strayhorn v. Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 882 F. Supp. 2d 1020

Seven cases involving Wyeth and other Brand Name Defendants pending; injuries from Reglan or metoclopramide generic; plaintiffs allege labeling/warnings defects and misrepresentation; plaintiffs took only generic metoclopramide, not Reglan; Tennessee Products Liability Act governs claims; brand-name defendants did not sell the generic drug; Smith v. Wyeth controls duty analysis under Tennessee law.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does the Tennessee Products Liability Act bar claims against Brand Name Defendants by plaintiffs who did not ingest Reglan?	Plaintiffs argue misrepresentation/warning claims survive apart from TPLA.	Brand Name Defendants contend TPLA bars all such claims.	Yes; TPLA governs and bars claims.
Do brand-name manufacturers owe a duty to consumers who never took their brand-name product when injuries arise from a generic drug?	Plaintiffs rely on misrepresentation/warnings tied to brand-labels.	Defendants argue no duty to non-users.	No duty under Tennessee law; Smith controls.
Are Restatement § 552 misrepresentation claims and Tennessee warranty claims viable here?	Claims grounded in § 552 and UCC warranties survive independent of TPLA.	§ 552 and UCC warranties do not apply to brand-name defendants here.	§ 552 inapplicable; UCC warranties do not create liability.
Does UCC express/implied warranty law apply when Brand Name Defendants did not sell the product?	Privity or broad warranty extension may reach plaintiffs.	Brand Name Defendants did not sell the product.	UCC does not create liability for these Brand Name Defendants.

Smith v. Wyeth, Inc., 657 F.3d 420 (6th Cir. 2011) (duty to warn non-users of brand-name drug rejected by Sixth Circuit)
Conte v. Wyeth, Inc., 168 Cal. App.4th 89 (Cal. App. 2008) (California minority approach on brand vs. generic liability)
Barnes v. The Kerr Corp., 418 F.3d 583 (6th Cir. 2005) (no duty to warn dangers of another manufacturer's products)