For Eliquis Cases Filed In California State Court, JCCP Case Coordination Petition Is Still Pending, With Determination Expected In Next Couple Of Months

 

(Posted by Tom Lamb at DrugInjuryWatch.com)

 

The Eliquis drug injury litigation is still at its beginning stages, with less than 100 lawsuits across the country having  been filed to date.

Eliquis (apixaban) was approved by the FDA in 2012. Pfizer and Bristol-Myers Squibb are the two drug companies responsible for Eliquis.

Eliquis does not have an antidote for a patient experiencing a trauma-induced bleeding event or needing emergency surgery.

These medical conditions may have been caused by the use of Eliquis:

• Serious Bleeding Events
• Irreversible Fatal Bleeding Events
• Trauma-induced Atypical Bleeding Incidents
• Gastrointestinal (GI) Bleeds
• Rectal Bleeding
• Hemorrhages
• Brain Hemorrhage
• Intracranial Hemorrhage
• Hemorrhagic Stroke
• Cardiac Bleeds

During the past year or so, an increasing number of Eliquis lawsuits have been filed involving people who had excessive bleeding, bled to death, or experienced other serious side effects of Eliquis.

In the federal court system, there are now more than 50 Eliquis lawsuits filed, and more of these drug injury and death cases are expected. Given this situation, in early February 2017 the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) established this consolidation of all federal court Eliquis cases, IN RE: ELIQUIS (APIXABAN) PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION — MDL No. 2754.

 

____________________________________________

Free Case Evaluation (select one)

 Eliquis  —  Savaysa  —  Xarelto

Strictly Confidential, No Obligation.

____________________________________________

 

From the February 7, 2017 JPML Order establishing this Eliquis federal court MDL we get this information about the litigation:

There are now a total of 53 actions pending in 17 districts raising substantially the same factual and legal issues concerning plaintiffs’ alleged injuries arising from Eliquis….

[W]e find that these actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. All the actions share common factual questions arising out of allegations that plaintiffs suffered severe bleeding and related injuries as a result of taking Eliquis (apixaban), that defendants did not conduct sufficient testing of the drug, and that defendants’ warnings and instructions as to the alleged risks, including the unavailability of a reversal agent to counteract bleeding, were inadequate. Issues concerning the design, testing, manufacture, regulatory approval, labeling, and marketing of Eliquis thus are common to all actions. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings on Daubert issues and other pretrial matters; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel and the judiciary.

We conclude that the Southern District of New York is an appropriate transferee district for this litigation. Common defendants BMS and Pfizer both have their corporate headquarters within the district, and therefore relevant documents and witnesses are likely to be located there. Sixteen actions on the motion and three potential tag-along actions are pending there. Judge Denise L. Cote, who presides over all actions in the district, is an experienced transferee judge with the willingness and ability to manage this litigation. We are confident she will steer this litigation on a prudent course.   [footnotes omitted]

In addition to the federal court Eliquis cases, there are a significant number of Eliquis lawsuits filed in the California state court system. As a result, a petition to coordinate those California Eliquis cases was submitted to the Chair of the Judicial Council seeking to establish a consolidation, there, which would be similar to the federal court Eliquis MDL.

In California, if that petition to coordinate the Eliquis lawsuits — which was submitted to the Chair of the Judicial Council (the Chief Justice) and then assigned to a motion judge for determination — is granted, its result would be called the California Eliquis JCCP (Judicial Council Coordination Proceedings).

It is currently expected that the determination about the creation of this California Eliquis JCCP will be made in the next couple of months.

Of course, we will continue to monitor the Eliquis lawsuits in the federal court MDL litigation as well as in the California state court system for significant developments, such as the anticipated Eliquis JCCP ruling, and report those here as we learn about them.

DrugInjuryLaw.com: Medical & Legal Information About Drug Side Effects  (All website content by attorney Tom Lamb)

Drug Injury Case Evaluation - Free. Confidential. No Obligation.  (Case review done by attorney Tom Lamb)