MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC v. Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Background

The plaintiffs were MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC; MSPA Claims 1, LLC; MAO-MSO Recovery II LLC; and MSP Recovery Claims Series 44, LLC. The opinion states that they obtained assignments from third-party payers of health-care costs for enrollees. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants manufactured, marketed, sold, or distributed the fluoroquinolone drugs Cipro, Avelox, and Levaquin, and that use of those drugs was linked to peripheral neuropathy.

The plaintiffs asserted claims including strict liability, product liability, negligence, breach of warranty, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, and violations of state consumer-protection and fraud laws. They alleged that the assigned third-party payers suffered financial losses from paying for or providing medical care related to injuries allegedly caused by the drugs. The defendants moved to dismiss the First Amended Complaint in its entirety, including for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Personal Jurisdiction

Personal jurisdiction is a court’s authority to decide claims against a particular defendant. The court applied Florida’s long-arm statute because the jurisdictional arguments concerned Florida. Under that statute, specific personal jurisdiction requires a connection between the defendants’ Florida activities and the claims. General personal jurisdiction requires substantial, continuous, and systematic business activity in Florida.

The plaintiffs argued that the defendants sold and distributed the drugs in Florida and that some assigned claims involved Florida-based payers, Florida beneficiaries, and care received in Florida. The court concluded that these allegations did not establish specific jurisdiction. It reasoned that the plaintiffs sought recovery for the assigned payers’ economic losses from unpaid reimbursement, not for the enrollees’ underlying personal injuries. The court found no sufficiently direct connection between those reimbursement claims and the defendants’ alleged Florida activities.

The court also rejected jurisdiction based on Florida’s personal-injury provision because the plaintiffs’ alleged injuries were economic losses, not personal injury or physical-property damage. It rejected the tort provision because the plaintiffs did not allege that the defendants committed torts directly against them or that they were seeking personal-injury damages for the enrollees. The court further concluded that allegations of one or more purchases of the drugs in Florida did not show the substantial, continuous, or systematic contacts required for general jurisdiction.

Because the plaintiffs did not make a preliminary showing of personal jurisdiction under Florida’s long-arm statute, the court did not conduct the separate constitutional due-process analysis. It also did not consider the defendants’ alternative grounds for dismissal.

Disposition

Judge Tunheim granted the defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint and dismissed the action without prejudice. The order directed that judgment be entered accordingly.