Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In re Xarelto (Rivaroxaban) Products Liability Litigation

United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana

October 10, 2017

IN RE XARELTO (RIVAROXABAN) PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION
v.
Janssen, et al., No. 15-4790 THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: Louiviere

         SECTION L

          NORTH, MAG. JUDGE

          ORDER & REASONS

          ELDON E. FALLON, JUDGE

         Before the Court is Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. R. Doc. 5415. Plaintiff has responded in opposition. R. Doc. 5658. Having reviewed the parties' briefs and the applicable law, the Court now issues this Order & Reasons.

         I. BACKGROUND:

         This matter arises from damages Plaintiffs claim to have suffered from the manufacture, sale, distribution, and/or use of the medication known as Xarelto, an anti-coagulant used for a variety of blood-thinning medical purposes. The Plaintiffs have filed suits in federal courts throughout the nation against Defendants, Bayer Corporation, Bayer HealthCare LLC, Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc., Bayer HealthCare AG, Bayer Pharma AG, and Bayer AG, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Janssen Research & Development, LLC, Janssen Ortho LLC, and Johnson & Johnson. The Plaintiffs specifically allege that they or their family members suffered severe bleeding and other injuries due to Xarelto's allegedly inadequate warning label. In this case, Plaintiff Louviere brings a claim for damages from internal bleeding allegedly caused by treatment with Xarelto.

         II. PRESENT MOTIONS

         A. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (R. Doc. 5415)

         Defendant moves for summary judgment arguing that Plaintiff's lawsuit is prescribed. R. Doc. 5415 at 2. Defendant alleges that Plaintiff Louviere believed and had reason to believe that his gastrointestinal bleed was caused by Xarelto no later than March 28, 2013. R. Doc. 5415 at 1. Therefore, Defendant argues, Plaintiff had until March 28, 2014 to file his claim against Defendant. R. Doc. 5415 at 1. Because Plaintiff did not file his lawsuit until June 4, 2015, Defendant argues that this claim is prescribed and Defendant is entitled to summary judgment. R. Doc. 5415 at 1-2.

         B. Plaintiff's Response (R. Doc. 5658)

         Plaintiff responds in opposition to Defendant's motion. R. Doc. 5658. Plaintiff argues that his lawsuit was timely filed because he is not merely claiming damages based on his internal bleeding, but also based on Defendant's failure to properly instruct Plaintiff's physicians. R. Doc. 5658 at 1. Plaintiff argues that he was unaware of this tortious behavior at the time of the internal bleeding. R. Doc. 5658 at 1. Plaintiff argues that the prescriptive period did not begin to run until Plaintiff was aware that Defendant's alleged tortious acts had placed him at an unnecessarily increased risk for internal bleeding. R. Doc. 5658 at 14. Therefore, Plaintiff was not required to file his suit until after he learned about this connection and Plaintiff timely filed. R. Doc. 5658.

         C. Defendant's Reply (R. Doc. 5798)

         Defendant replies arguing that Plaintiff's claim has prescribed because plaintiffs do not need to be aware of their potential claims or legal theories in order to be on notice. R. Doc. 5798 at 1. On the contrary, Defendant argues, plaintiffs must investigate the facts and circumstances of potential claims as soon as they are aware of an injury. R. Doc. 5798 at 1. Finally, Defendant reasserts its argument that contra non valentum does not apply to Plaintiff's case because Louisiana law states that the prescriptive period begins when the plaintiff has enough notice to inquire about a potential claim, rather than when plaintiff has completed an inquiry and discovered specific information about the potential claim. R. Doc. 5798 at 4.

         III. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.