Opinion
MDL No. 1407.
July 8, 2004
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS FOR DISMISSAL
Defendant Wyeth has moved for dismissal and for a more definite statement in the above-titled actions on a number of grounds. Having reviewed the briefing filed in the motions, the court finds and rules as follows:
Regarding those portions of the motions that relate to the exclusivity of the Louisiana Products Liability Act, the court finds that the issues raised, and the arguments presented, are materially similar and in some cases identical to those addressed in the court's June 10, 2004 Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Non-Louisiana Products Liability Act Claims, Punitive Damages Claims, and Medical Monitoring Claims ("June 10, 2004 Order"). For the reasons articulated in that order, the court grants defendant's motions as they relate to plaintiffs' products liability claims, dismissing the following common law theories of liability as abrogated by the Louisiana Products Liability Act: strict liability, strict products liability, negligence, misrepresentation, fraudulent misrepresentation, conspiracy, concealment and breach of implied warranty. See June 10, 2004 Order at 2-4. For the reasons articulated in the same order, the court also grants Wyeth's motions as they relate to plaintiffs' claims for medical monitoring. See June 10, 2004 Order at 7-9.
Although the plaintiffs' complaints do not specifically rely on the LPLA, the court is able to discern that at the very least, the complaints articulate claims for failure to warn and for defective product design, theories of recovery that are indeed recognized under the LPLA. See Grenier v. Medical Engineering Corp., 99 F. Supp.2d 759, 764 (W.D. La. 1999); Complaints of Nero and Norgah, ¶ 14. Therefore, dismissal of the complaints in their entirety is not appropriate at this time.
In addition, for reasons also articulated in the June 10, 2004 Order, the court denies defendant's motions as they relate to plaintiffs' punitive damages claims, leaving that highly casespecific issue for determination, if at all, by the respective transferor courts. See June 10, 2004 Order at 5-7.
Newly raised in these two motions is whether plaintiffs may be entitled to attorneys' fees. Wyeth asserts that in Louisiana, such fees are not available except where explicitly authorized by statute or contract, inapplicable to these cases. Neither plaintiff has gainsaid this assertion, and the motions to dismiss the claims for attorneys' fees are therefore granted.
Finally, defendant asks the court in the alternative to order plaintiffs to provide a more definite statement. As the request appears to be related only to those claims dismissed by this order, it is now moot.
In sum, defendant's motions as they relate to non-LPLA common-law claims are GRANTED; the motions to dismiss claims for punitive damages are DENIED; the motions to dismiss claims for medical monitoring are GRANTED, as are the motions to dismiss claims for attorneys' fees. In addition, the court DENIES defendant's motions for a more definite statement as moot.