United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana
ORDER & REASONS
E. FALLON, JUDGE
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 &
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.
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (R. Doc.
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.
Plaintiff's Response (R. Doc. 5658)
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.
Defendant's Reply (R. Doc. 5798)
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.