In re Copley Pharmaceutical, Inc.
161 F.R.D. 456, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5578, 1995 WL 247682 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In mass tort litigation, a trial court may, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(4)(A), certify a class action for common issues of liability and general causation, to be tried separately from subsequent individual trials on specific causation and damages, without violating the Seventh Amendment's Re-Examination Clause.
Facts:
- Copley Pharmaceutical, Inc. manufactured a generic bronchodilator prescription drug named Albuterol.
- Contamination was discovered in Copley's Albuterol 0.5% solution.
- In January 1994, Copley initiated a nationwide recall of the contaminated Albuterol.
- Numerous individuals who had used the recalled Albuterol claimed to have suffered injuries as a result.
- Copley admitted that some of its Albuterol was contaminated and that it would be liable for any injuries resulting from it.
- However, Copley contended that the specific contaminants in its Albuterol were not capable of causing injury to human beings.
Procedural Posture:
- Following a nationwide product recall, numerous individual lawsuits were filed against Copley Pharmaceutical, Inc. in federal courts across the United States.
- The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated all federal cases for pretrial proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming.
- A Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee filed an Amended Class Action Complaint and moved for class certification.
- The District Court granted partial class certification under FRCP 23(b)(3) for the common issues of strict liability, negligence, negligence per se, breach of warranties, and declaratory relief.
- Following the certification, discovery proceeded and notice was sent to the class, allowing members to opt out.
- Copley Pharmaceutical, Inc. then filed a Motion to Decertify the Class, which is the subject of the current order.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does bifurcating a mass tort class action into a single trial on common liability issues and subsequent individual trials on causation and damages violate the defendant's Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial or render the class unmanageable due to differing state laws?
Opinions:
Majority - Brimmer, District Judge.
No, bifurcating a mass tort class action into a trial on common liability issues and subsequent individual trials on causation and damages does not violate the defendant's Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial or render the class unmanageable. The court held that the issue of general causation (whether the product is capable of causing harm) is distinct and separable from the issue of individual causation (whether the product harmed a specific plaintiff), allowing different juries to decide each without violating the Seventh Amendment. The court reasoned that its two-phase trial plan, with a class trial on common factual issues followed by individual trials in transferor districts on specific causation and damages, is a constitutionally permissible and efficient way to manage mass tort litigation. The court explicitly rejected the contrary reasoning of the Seventh Circuit in 'In re Rhone-Poulenc,' aligning instead with the Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Ninth Circuits, which have approved similar bifurcated approaches. The court also found that potential variations in state product liability laws did not make the class unmanageable, as many core principles are similar and the court retained the power to exclude class members from states with idiosyncratic laws. Finally, the court emphasized the strong policy rationale of providing access to justice for claimants with small-value claims who could not afford to litigate individually against a large corporation.
Analysis:
This case represents a significant endorsement of the use of bifurcated class actions under FRCP 23(c)(4)(A) to manage mass tort litigation, particularly in the face of a contrary trend in the Seventh Circuit. By directly confronting and rejecting the reasoning in 'In re Rhone-Poulenc,' the court highlighted a developing circuit split on the constitutional and practical limits of class certification in product liability cases. The decision provides a clear analytical framework for separating 'general' from 'individual' causation, arguing this distinction satisfies the Seventh Amendment's 'distinct and separable' test from 'Gasoline Products.' This approach reinforces trial courts' broad discretion and promotes judicial economy and access to justice, setting a persuasive precedent for other district courts handling similar complex cases.
