On October 13, 2016, GlaxoSmithKline asked a federal court to dismiss all Zofran lawsuits that involve the anti-nausea drug’s generic equivalents. In a second motion, filed the same day, the company requested that all claims based in allegations of fraud be struck from the lawsuits. Plaintiffs have answered with strong disapproval, calling the motions “sweeping” and inappropriate.
GlaxoSmithKline currently faces hundreds of lawsuits over Zofran’s link to major birth defects. The lawsuits have been consolidated for pre-trial proceedings in a federal district court in Massachusetts.
GSK Fires Off Volley Of Motions To Dismiss In Zofran MDL
In the company’s first motion, defense attorneys argue that Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV should dismiss 27 lawsuits brought by women who say they were prescribed generic versions of ondansetron and gave birth to children with major birth defects. According to GlaxoSmithKline, the claims were filed under state laws that the company believes “do not permit a defendant to be held liable for a product it did not manufacture, sell, or distribute.”
GlaxoSmithKline’s second motion calls for the Court to strike from Zofran lawsuits all “fraud-based claims,” arguing that any “contention that GSK, through its marketing, promotion, and labeling, somehow misrepresented facts about Zofran […] lacks basic factual detail.”
On October 26, Plaintiffs fired back, accusing GlaxoSmithKline of attempting to “delay” the consolidated litigation. The “sweeping” motions, Plaintiffs say, are nothing less than an effort to “derail” the MDL before discovery, by forcing the Boston court’s attention to “multiple state-specific issues of law.” Plaintiffs argue that both dismissal motions are inappropriate because they require judgments on state law, and thus cannot lead to rulings common to every lawsuit.