Lawsuits claiming Zantac and its generic equivalents caused cancer belong in Connecticut state court, two groups of Constitution State cancer patients and their estates say, arguing against several drugmakers' assertions that they can't be sued in the state on innovator and warning label liability claims.

Twin supplemental objections to the drugmakers' motions to dismiss the cases, filed Monday on the Connecticut Superior Court's complex litigation docket in Waterbury, say GlaxoSmithKline LLC and Pfizer Inc. consented to jurisdiction in Connecticut by filing incorporation papers with the Connecticut Secretary of State. Pointing to a local federal court decision, the motions also argue that a group of drugmakers should face litigation in Connecticut because they decided to sell drugs in Connecticut.

"Innovator liability intrinsically 'relates to' defendants' substantial and purposeful availment of drug sales and marketing in Connecticut," the patients argued, citing International Shoe Co. v. Washington, the U.S. Supreme Court's seminal 1945 personal jurisdiction opinion.

"The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly held that placing a product into the 'stream of commerce' so as to 'purposefully target' a market with that product can satisfy the minimum contacts requirement," they added.

Linda Carrano and eight others filed the first lawsuit in Connecticut state court on Aug. 29, 2023; George Morrison and five others followed on March 4, 2024. The cases have since been consolidated.

Carrano and Morrison claim the original version of Zantac and ranitidine, its generic equivalent, degraded into the probable carcinogen nitrosodimethylamine, or NDMA. The complaints in both cases allege several strict liability claims, warranty claims, fraud, and negligence, including claims that temperature and humidity fluctuations during transportation affected the drug.

Pharmaceutical companies GlaxoSmithKline LLC, GlaxoSmithKline Holdings (Americas) Inc., Pfizer Inc., Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC, and Sanofi US Services Inc. filed a collective motion to dismiss the Carrano lawsuit, citing personal jurisdiction issues as purported nonresident defendants.

Zantac makers GSK, Pfizer, and Sanofi also said they never manufactured or sold ranitidine and cannot face innovator liability or warning label liability claims over ranitidine bottled by other companies. Those causes of action have only been adopted in California and Massachusetts and are not valid in Connecticut, according to the companies.

"The hallmark feature of innovator liability — that it holds a brand-name company responsible for the labeling of generic products manufactured and sold by a different company — requires minimum contacts with Connecticut that plaintiffs do not and cannot allege," the three companies argued.

Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals Inc., Boehringer Ingelheim Corp., and Boehringer Ingelheim USA Corp. joined the other drugmakers' motion to dismiss a sole plaintiff's claim in the Carrano lawsuit because it was the subject of prior Delaware litigation, according to the company.

Because Boehringer maintains its U.S. headquarters in Connecticut, it did not join the other companies' personal jurisdiction arguments.

GSK, Pfizer, and Sanofi filed similar grounds for dismissal of the Morrison action, but Boehringer did not join the motion in that case.

The plaintiffs responded by arguing that the personal jurisdiction defenses missed the mark, saying the Supreme Court expressly rejected similar arguments in Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court, a 2021 case, and World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, a 1980 opinion.

"Defendants' argument that they did not sell the specific product they are being held liable for under innovator liability is irrelevant to personal jurisdiction" on the asserted claims, the Connecticut plaintiffs responded.

"The relevant conduct is 'the efforts of the manufacturer… to serve, directly or indirectly, the market for its products in other states,' i.e., its purposeful targeting of the forum market," they added, citing World-Wide Volkswagen.

The plaintiffs also disagreed with the companies' purported limits on innovator liability claims, saying "personal jurisdiction exists against a brand manufacturer where the plaintiffs suffered harm from a generic and sought compensation under innovator liability."

They also argued that the makers of name-brand Zantac were liable for the wording on ranitidine labels.

"They had direct control over the warning labels on those generic products," the plaintiffs argued. "As a matter of law, the generic manufacturers were bound by the brand name manufacturers' labeling decisions."

The companies' dismissal memoranda note that a judge rubbished similar cancer claims in a sprawling Florida multidistrict litigation. The breakup of the multidistrict litigation case paved the way for smaller groups of plaintiffs to sue individually.

Sanofi has repeatedly stated that "there is no reliable scientific evidence that Zantac can cause cancer."

"Sanofi believes that none of these cases should proceed to trial," the company said in a recent statement about similar litigation in Delaware. "Sanofi remains committed to its defense and to the safety of Zantac and will continue to vigorously defend itself against these claims, which the medical, scientific, and regulatory communities have extensively evaluated and have found to be without merit."

GSK released a similar statement last week after a Delaware state court judge allowed Zantac claims to continue in that jurisdiction. The company promised an appeal in that matter and to fight the Connecticut claims.

"Following the 16 epidemiological studies looking at human data regarding the use of ranitidine, the scientific consensus is that there is no consistent or reliable evidence that ranitidine increases the risk of any cancer," the company said in a statement to Law360 on Tuesday. "GSK will continue to vigorously defend itself against all claims."

In a 2022 statement, Pfizer said it only sold Zantac between 1998 and 2006, more than a decade before the drug was withdrawn from the market in 2019 and 2020.

"Pfizer has significant defenses to this litigation and there are significant legal and factual issues that remain to be addressed by the courts," the company said in 2022. "Pfizer also has substantial indemnification claims against others, which have been acknowledged by several manufacturers in their disclosures."

In late May, a Chicago jury sided with GSK and Boehringer Ingelheim on Zantac cancer claims in Illinois.

Pfizer, Sanofi-Aventis, and Boehringer spokespersons did not respond to Law360 inquiries about the Connecticut case Tuesday. An attorney for the plaintiffs also did not respond to a message.

The Connecticut plaintiffs are all represented by Brenden P. Leydon of Wocl Leydon LLC.

Pfizer is represented by James O. Craven and James I. Glasser of Wiggin & Dana LLP.

GlaxoSmithKline is represented by Robert R. Simpson and Lauren R. Greenspoon of Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP.

Sanofi-Aventis is represented by Joseph W. Martini and Janna D. Eastwood of Spears Manning & Martini LLC.

Boehringer is represented by Patrick M. Fahey and Jaime A. Welsh of Shipman & Goodwin LLP.

The cases are Linda Carrano et al. v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al., case number UWY-CV23-6075772-S, and George Morrison et al. v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al., case number UWY-CV24-6076005-S, on the Complex Litigation Docket of the Connecticut Superior Court at Waterbury.

4o