FOLLOW US

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to review a Second Circuit decision holding that consolidated lawsuits against pharmaceutical companies over alleged carcinogens in Zantac will proceed in Connecticut state court.

The pharmaceutical companies—Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, and Pfizer Inc.—had petitioned the justices to reconsider the Second Circuit's split decision, arguing that federal jurisdiction should apply under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA).

Consolidation and Jurisdiction Dispute

The lawsuits involve nine separate claims, each filed with fewer than 100 plaintiffs, consolidated for pretrial purposes in Connecticut Superior Court. The pharmaceutical companies argued that consolidation for pretrial matters signaled an intent for a joint trial, which would invoke federal jurisdiction under CAFA’s mass action provisions.

However, the Second Circuit majority concluded that the cases were consolidated only for pretrial proceedings, not for trial, which justified keeping them in state court.

Arguments for Federal Jurisdiction

In their petition, the pharmaceutical companies criticized the Second Circuit for creating what they described as a subjective, unpredictable test requiring courts to analyze plaintiffs’ intent rather than applying a clear rule.

“By grafting onto the statute the element of intent, the Second Circuit’s decision establishes an unpredictable, fact-intensive inquiry for CAFA mass action jurisdiction that is not required by the statute itself,” the petition argued.

U.S. Circuit Judge Amalya L. Kearse dissented, asserting that the Second Circuit should have ruled in favor of federal jurisdiction because the cases were consolidated under a state provision designed for claims that “should be tried together.”

Plaintiffs’ Response

The plaintiffs countered that the Second Circuit applied a reasonable standard. “The Second Circuit asks whether ‘a reasonable observer would conclude that plaintiffs acted with the intention of bringing about a joint trial,’ not whether a psychic would,” they argued in their opposition brief.

John Bruegger, counsel for the plaintiffs, expressed satisfaction with the Supreme Court’s decision to leave the Second Circuit ruling intact. “We are very pleased with the Supreme Court's decision and look forward to pursuing the matter further in Connecticut state court,” he said.

Implications

By declining to hear the case, the Supreme Court allows the Zantac carcinogen claims to move forward in state court, potentially setting a precedent for how courts interpret CAFA’s mass action provisions.