Valentino v. Carter-Wallace, Inc.
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
97 F.3d 1227 (1996)
- Written by Sharon Feldman, JD
Facts
Carter-Wallace, Inc., and Wallace Laboratories (collectively, Carter-Wallace) (defendants) manufactured Felbatol, a drug used to treat epilepsy. Carter-Wallace marketed Felbatol without serious-side-effect warnings and subsequently learned that some patients had developed aplastic anemia and liver failure. Monica Valentino and others (collectively, Valentino) (plaintiffs) brought a products-liability class action against Carter-Wallace. The district court conditionally certified a plaintiff class consisting of all persons who began using Felbatol before Carter-Wallace notified the physician community of the risk of aplastic anemia and a “serious injury” subclass, and it limited class certification to certain issues. Carter-Wallace appealed, arguing that the certified class did not meet Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (Rule) 23(b)(3)’s requirements that common issues of fact predominate over individual issues and a class action be superior to other adjudication methods. Carter-Wallace maintained that In re Northern Dist. of California, Dalkon Shield IUD Prod. Liab. Litig. barred class certification for multistate plaintiffs asserting personal-injury claims against manufacturers of drugs and medical devices.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Schroeder, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 834,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.