Dec. 5, 2016 – San Diego, CA – A Massachusetts district judge has denied GlaxoSmithKline’s bid to throw out six Zofran lawsuits whose plaintiffs had not filed mandatory court documents on-time.
Hood National Law Group first told you about GSK’s attempt back in October, after the pharmaceutical company filed three separate motions to dismiss with the District Court of Massachusetts.
One of those motions was an effort to dismiss any lawsuit in the Zofran multidistrict litigation that was missing court-ordered documents.
U.S. District Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV ordered all plaintiffs in the MDL to file product identification sheets, plaintiff fact sheets, and short-form complaints by the end of the summer, but by September, more than 20 plaintiffs had yet to file all three forms.
GSK asked Judge Saylor to throw out the lawsuits of plaintiffs who had not yet filed the documents, arguing the court had the power to dismiss any lawsuit whose plaintiff failed to comply with court orders. The company also asked the judge to order sanctions against those plaintiffs who filed their documents late, in an attempt to recover attorney’s fees.
Some plaintiffs said they had needed more time to gather pertinent medical records, and eventually filed their documents, albeit a month or two late.
Judge Saylor’s order relates to six cases whose plaintiffs have since filed the necessary documents.
Although the plaintiffs have now filed their documents, they may be billed for any costs GSK incurred when seeking to compel the missing information. Judge Saylor gave the pharmaceutical company until Dec. 9 to file a new motion.
The cases are DeLeon v. GlaxoSmithKline (15-cv-13919); Dixon v. GlaxoSmithKline (15-cv-13924); Perham v. GlaxoSmithKline (16-cv-10199); Pilkington v. GlaxoSmithKline (15-cv 13842); Rickman v. GlaxoSmithKline (15-cv-13830); and Shonkwiler v. GlaxoSmithKline (15-cv-13583).
Zofran Lawsuits
Hundreds of women have filed lawsuits against GlaxoSmithKline over its anti-nausea drug Zofran, contending the company improperly marketed the drug as safe and effective for pregnant women to take for morning sickness.
Women who took Zofran during pregnancy say their babies were born with serious and sometimes life-threatening birth defects, including heart problems and cleft palate.
If you took name-brand Zofran during pregnancy and your baby was born with a birth defect, you may be entitled to compensation. With cases already pending in court, it’s important that you act now.
The experienced lawyers and attorneys at Hood National Law Group have been holding companies like GlaxoSmithKline responsible for the harm they’ve subjected thousands of consumers to for years. Contact the Hood National Law Group today at 1-800-214-1010 for a free case evaluation. You can also use the form on the right-hand side of your screen.
