In re Prempro Products Liability Litigation

Full title: In re: PREMPRO PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. LINDA REEVES, Plaintiff v…

Court: United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Western Division

Date published: Jun 8, 2006

MDL Docket No. 4:03CV1507-WRW, 4:05CV00163 (E.D. Ark. Jun. 8, 2006)

Opinion

MDL Docket No. 4:03CV1507-WRW, 4:05CV00163.

June 8, 2006

ORDER

WILLIAM WILSON JR., District Judge

Statute of Limitations

Pending is Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment Re Statute of Limitations (Doc. No. 63). Plaintiff has responded (Doc. No. 105).

Essentially, Defendants make the same argument that was previously denied in the other bellwether case.¹ Following oral argument at the May 12, 2006 status conference, the motion was denied.² For the same reasons that were expressed in the status conference and subsequent order regarding Rush v. Wyeth, Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment Re Statute of Limitations (Doc. No. 63) is DENIED.

1 See Rush v. Wyeth, et al., 4:05-CV-00497-WRW (E.D. Ark. 2005), Doc. No. 42.

2 Id. at Doc. No. 68.

Affirmative Defenses

Pending are Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgement Re: Comparative Negligence and Related Defenses (Doc. No. 56) and Motion for Summary Judgment Re: Affirmative Defenses (Doc. No. 66). Defendant has responded to both motions (Doc. Nos. 103, 99).

The Motion for Summary Judgement Re: Comparative Negligence and Related Defenses (Doc. No. 56) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Specifically, the motion is GRANTED as it relates to Defendant Wyeth's affirmative defenses 3, 6, and 7, because Defendant Wyeth withdrew those affirmative defenses.³ The motion is DENIED as it pertains to affirmative defenses 5 (comparative fault) and 10 (failure to mitigate).

3 In a March 8, 2006 letter, Wyeth also withdrew affirmative defenses 9, 12, 25, 26, 28, 30, and 31 ( See Doc. No. 66-3).

The Motion for Summary Judgment Re: Affirmative Defenses (Doc. No. 66) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Specifically, the motion is GRANTED as it relates to Wyeth affirmative defenses 2,⁴ 11, 23, 27. The motion is DENIED as it pertains to affirmative defenses 1, 4, 8, 13, 14, 17 and DENIED without prejudice as it pertains to Wyeth's affirmative defenses regarding punitive damages — 32, 33, and 34.⁵

4 Wyeth's withdrawal of affirmative defense 2 is limited to the statute of repose and not statute of limitations; so too is the granting of the motion.

5 Incorrectly referred to as affirmative defenses 42-49 in Plaintiff's motion.

IT IS SO ORDERED.