Woodhams v. GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare Holdings LLC.
- James Oetken
- 1:18-cv-03990
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Woodhams v. Pfizer Inc., Judge Oetken lifted the stay, reinstated the case, and reactivated Pfizer’s pending motions.
The named plaintiffs, the proposed nationwide class, and Pfizer Inc. were affected. The case resumed, and Pfizer’s previously filed motions to dismiss and to strike became active again.
What happened
In Woodhams v. Pfizer Inc., the plaintiffs sued Pfizer over Robitussin labeling and pricing. They claimed Pfizer charged more for “Maximum Strength” Robitussin even though it contained less of an essential active ingredient than “Regular Strength” Robitussin.
The court had paused the case while a similar case in Illinois addressed class certification. During the pause, Pfizer’s motions to dismiss and to strike were left inactive. After the Illinois court denied class certification in that similar case, the plaintiffs asked this court to end the pause.
Judge Oetken granted the plaintiffs’ request. He reinstated the case for further proceedings and treated Pfizer’s motions to dismiss and to strike as active again. The order did not decide those motions or the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims.
The detailed version
- Woodhams v. GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare Holdings LLC. · No. 1:18-cv-03990
- James Oetken
- Apr. 17, 2020
Background
Timothy A. Woodhams, Elizabeth Hinz, Ronald de Clue, John Covello, Joshua Hoaglund, Oscar De Leon, Cynthia Carrillo, Daniel Paul, Robert Trepper, and Daniel Utterback brought the action for themselves and a proposed nationwide class against Pfizer Inc. The plaintiffs alleged that Pfizer marketed and distributed Robitussin cough syrup and deceived consumers by charging more for “Maximum Strength” Robitussin even though it contained a lower amount of an essential active ingredient than “Regular Strength” Robitussin.
Pfizer filed a motion to dismiss and a motion to strike. Both motions were fully briefed.
Stay and Related Proceedings
The plaintiffs moved to pause this action while a class-certification motion was resolved in a substantially similar case in the Northern District of Illinois. The court granted that request and paused the case. It previously left Pfizer’s motions inactive, subject to reactivation if the pause ended.
The Illinois court later denied class certification in the similar case. The plaintiffs then asked this court to lift the pause.
Ruling
The court granted the plaintiffs’ motion to lift the stay. It reinstated the case for further proceedings and deemed Pfizer’s motion to dismiss and motion to strike reactivated. The Clerk of Court was directed to lift the stay. The order did not rule on either reactivated motion or decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.