Calchi v. GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare Holdings LLC
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:22-cv-01341
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Calchi v. GlaxoSmithKline, Judge Karas granted the joint motion, finding the proposed class-settlement approval motion raised a substantial issue, without approving settlement.
The ruling affects the plaintiffs, defendants, and proposed settlement class by allowing the parties to seek a limited return of the case so the district court can consider preliminary approval of the proposed nationwide settlement. It does not itself approve the settlement or distribute funds.
What happened
In Calchi v. GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare Holdings (US) LLC, the plaintiffs appealed after the court dismissed their proposed class action. While the appeal was pending, the parties negotiated a proposed nationwide settlement and asked the district court to consider preliminary approval after a limited return of the case.
The parties asked the court to state that their anticipated settlement-approval motion raised a substantial issue. This type of statement can allow the appeals court to return the case temporarily so the district court can consider the motion. The parties said the settlement would resolve the claims and potentially end the appeal, but settlement approval had not yet been requested for a decision.
Judge Karas granted the joint motion and stated that the anticipated motion raised a substantial issue. He did not approve or reject the settlement. The court directed the parties to notify the Second Circuit’s clerk and asked its own clerk to end the pending motion and send the order to the appeals court.
The detailed version
- Calchi v. GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare Holdings LLC · No. 7:22-cv-01341
- Kenneth Karas
- June 20, 2024
Background
The opinion concerns a proposed class action brought by Nancy Calchi against GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare Holdings (US) LLC, GSK Consumer Health, Inc., and Pfizer Inc. The caption also lists a related action brought by Stacey Papalia against GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare Holdings (US) LLC. The court states that it dismissed the putative class action on March 10, 2023, and that the plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
While the appeal was pending, the parties engaged in mediation and reached an agreement on a proposed nationwide class-action settlement. They prepared a written settlement agreement that included proposed certification of a nationwide class for settlement purposes and distribution of settlement funds. The plaintiffs’ counsel also prepared a motion seeking preliminary approval of the settlement.
Issue and requested ruling
Because the appeal had been docketed, the district court lacked authority to take certain action while the appeal remained pending. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62.1, a district court may state either that it would grant a motion if the appeals court returns the case for that purpose or that the motion raises a substantial issue. The parties jointly requested this type of indicative ruling so they could ask the Second Circuit to return the case for settlement purposes.
Court’s ruling
The court granted the parties’ joint motion for an indicative ruling. It stated that the plaintiffs’ anticipated motion for preliminary approval of the proposed class-action settlement raised a substantial issue under Rule 62.1. The court relied in part on the strong public policy favoring settlement of class actions and complex litigation.
The ruling did not approve or reject the proposed settlement. The court expressly left the ultimate settlement-approval decision for a separate motion after the Second Circuit returns the case. The parties were directed to notify the Second Circuit’s clerk of the ruling. The district court clerk was also asked to terminate the pending motion and deliver a copy of the order to the Second Circuit’s clerk.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.