Case 2:14-cv AWA-DEM Document 455 Filed 08/30/17 Page 1 of 5 PageID# 38225

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Case 2:14-cv AWA-DEM Document 455 Filed 08/30/17 Page 1 of 5 PageID# 38225"

Ethel Hodges
5 years ago
Views:

1 Case 2:14-cv AWA-DEM Document 455 Filed 08/30/17 Page 1 of 5 PageID# UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA NORFOLK DIVISION IN RE CELEBREX (CELECOXIB) ANTITRUST LITIGATION This document relates to: Lead Case No. 2:I4-cv Direct Purchaser Actions ORDER MAKING SUPPLEMENTAL FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO CERTIFICATION OF A DIRECT PURCHASER CLASS, APPOINTING LEAD CLASS COUNSEL, APPOINTING CLASS REPRESENTATIVES, APPROVING FORM AND MANNER OF NOTICE, AND APPOINTING A NOTICE ADMINISTRATOR A. Certification of a Direct Purchaser Class. Upon consideration ofthe Direct Purchaser Class Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and accompanying Memorandum, any opposition thereto, and any further briefing and argument thereon, AND considering the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation on Direct Purchaser's Motion for Class Certification (ECF. No. 394) and the reasoning set forth therein, AND in conjunction with this Court's Order ofaugust 24, 2017 adopting the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (ECF. No. 443), the Court makes the following additional determinations as required by Rule 23 ofthe Federal Rules ofcivil Procedure: 1. Pursuant to Rule 23(c)(1)(B), the Class, which shall hereinafter be denominated the "Class," is defined as follows: All persons or entities in the United States and its territories and possessions who purchased brand or generic versions of Celebrex directly from any manufacturer at any time during the period May 30, 2014 through March 2, 2015 (the "Class Period"). Excluded from the Direct Purchaser Class are Defendants and their officers, directors, management, employees, subsidiaries, or affiliates, and all federal governmental entities. Also excluded are persons or entities that, during the Class Period, purchased only generic versions of Celebrex and did not also purchase brand Celebrex. Also excluded are persons or entities that did not purchase brand Celebrex before December 10, 2014 and after December 10, 2014

2 Case 2:14-cv AWA-DEM Document 455 Filed 08/30/17 Page 2 of 5 PageID# only purchased brand Celebrex and not generic Celebrex. 2. For the sake of clarity, the identities ofthe Class members as identified by data produced in this matter are attached hereto as Exhibit A. 3. The Class is so numerous and geographically dispersed that joinder ofall members thereof is impracticable. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1). According to data produced by the defendants,' the Class has 32 members geographically dispersed throughout the United States, which is sufficient to satisfy the impracticality ofjoinder requirement of Rule 23(a)(1). 4. Pursuant to Rule 23(c)(1)(B), the Court determines that the following issues relating to claims and/or defenses present common, Class-wide questions: a. Whether Pfizer willfully obtained and/or maintained monopoly power over Celebrex and its generic equivalents; b. Whether Pfizer obtained U.S. Patent No. RE44,048 by fraud; c. Whether Pfizer asserted an invalid patent against would-be generic competitors; d. Whether Pfizer unlawfully excluded competitors and potential competitors from the market for Celebrex and its AB-rated generic bioequivalents; e. Whether Pfizer maintained monopoly power by delaying generic entry; f Whether the law requires definition of a relevant market when direct proof of monopoly power is available, and ifso the definition ofthe relevant market; g. Whether Pfizer's activities as alleged by the direct purchaser class plaintiffs have substantially affected interstate commerce; h. Whether, and if so to what extent, Pfizer's conduct caused antitrust injury (i.e., overcharges) to members ofthe Class; and i. The quantum ofaggregate overcharge damages to the Class. 5. The Court determines that the foregoing Class-wide issues relating to claims and/or defenses are questions of law or fact common to the Class that satisfy Rule 23(a)(2). The defendants are Pfizer, Inc., G.D. Searle LLC, and Pfizer Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd.

3 Case 2:14-cv AWA-DEM Document 455 Filed 08/30/17 Page 3 of 5 PageID# Pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3), the Court determines that common questions of law and fact predominate over questions affecting only individual members. In light ofthe Classwide claims, issues, and defenses set forth above, the issues in this action that are subject to generalized proof, and thus applicable to the Class as a whole, predominate over those issues that are subject only to individualized proof. Also pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3), the Court determines that a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this action. The Court believes it is desirable, for purposes ofjudicial and litigation efficiency, to concentrate the claims of the Class in a single action. The Court also believes that there are few manageability problems presented by a case such as this. B. Appointment of Lead Counsel and Designation of Class Representatives. 7. The Court previously appointed Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP as Interim Lead Counsel for the proposed Direct Purchaser Class. See Case Management Order No. 1 ^ 1, ECF No. 6L This firm has extensive experience in cases like this alleging suppression of generic drugs and, in collaboration with other class counsel, is working effectively to prosecute this case. The Court finds that counsel for the Class have prosecuted this litigation effectively to date, and, having considered the factors provided in Rule 23(g)(1)(A), hereby confirms the respective appointments as Lead Counsel for the Class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(1)(B) and 23(g). Lead Counsel is directed to ensure that any remaining work in this litigation that is performed by counsel for the direct purchasers is performed efficiently and without duplication ofeffort. 8. American Sales Company, LLC, Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc., and Cesar Castillo Co., the named direct purchaser class plaintiffs in this lawsuit (the "Named Plaintiffs"), are hereby appointed as representatives ofthe Class for the following reasons: a. The Named Plaintiffs allege on behalfofthe Class the same manner of injury from the same course ofconduct that they complain of for themselves, and the Named Plaintiffs assert on their own behalfthe same legal theory that they assert for the Class. The Court therefore determines that the Named Plaintiffs' claims are typical ofthe claims ofthe proposed

4 Case 2:14-cv AWA-DEM Document 455 Filed 08/30/17 Page 4 of 5 PageID# Class within the meaning ofrule 23(a)(3); and b. Pursuant to Rule 23(a)(4), the Court determines that the Named Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests ofthe Class. The Named Plaintiffs' interests do not conflict in any cognizable or material way with the interests ofabsent members ofthe Class. All ofthe Class members share a common interest in proving Defendants' alleged anticompetitive conduct, and all Class members share a common interest in recovering the overcharge damages sought in the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs' Corrected Second Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint (ECF No. 243). Moreover, any Class member that wishes to opt out will be given an opportunity to do so. Furthermore, the Named Plaintiffs are well-qualified to represent the Class in this case, given their collective experience in prior cases, their retention ofqualified counsel, and the vigor with which they have prosecuted this action thus far. C. Effectuating Notice to the Class. 9. Epiq Class Action & Claims Solutions, Inc. is hereby appointed notice administrator for this action. 10. The form ofnotice to be sent to members ofthe direct purchaser class will be substantially in the form ofthe proposed notice (the "Notice") attached as Exhibit 2 to the Declaration ofthomas M. Sobol filed with the Motion ("Sobol Declaration"). 11. Within 14 days of the entry of this Order, the notice administrator shall cause the Notice to be sent by U.S. First Class mail to the members ofthe class listed in Exhibit 1 to the Sobol Declaration. 12. Members ofthe class may request exclusion from the class in writing postmarked no later than 30 days from the mailing ofthe notice to the class. Lead class counsel or their designee shall monitor and record any and all opt-out requests that are received. 13. Within 60 days ofentry ofthis Order, the notice administrator shall file a declaration confirming that the notice has been sent by U.S. First Class Mail to all class members as required herein identifying the class members, if any, who requested to be excluded from the class. IT IS SO ORDERED.

5 Case 2:14-cv AWA-DEM Document 455 Filed 08/30/17 Page 5 of 5 PageID# Dated:,2017 BY THE coifrt:, Arenda U WrigM United States District Judge Hon. Arenda L. Wright Allen United States District Judge

Case 3:17-cv JAG Document 41 Filed 02/21/18 Page 1 of 8 PageID# 258

Case 3:17-cv JAG Document 41 Filed 02/21/18 Page 1 of 8 PageID# 258 Case 3:17-cv-00253-JAG Document 41 Filed 02/21/18 Page 1 of 8 PageID# 258 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA RICHMOND DIVISION Edwin Epps, Olivia Torres and Richard Jones,