Yes, the federal court can step in and stop them. The judge explained that the giant, nearly $5 billion settlement is a finished deal that the court has a duty to protect. The Missouri lawsuit was trying to get money for the same drug purchases that were already covered by the settlement. This would force Merck to pay twice for the same problem. If companies can't trust that a settlement will truly end the fight, they won't agree to settle big cases in the future. So, the court ordered the Missouri group to not ask for any money that was already part of the settled claims.

Yes, the federal judge can stop the Missouri plaintiffs from using certain evidence in their case. The way the Missouri plaintiffs want to prove how much money they should get could mess up the settlements already reached in the big federal lawsuit. They might end up getting a court order that makes Merck pay again for claims it already settled. This would make it harder for the federal judge to manage the big lawsuit and make the settlements stick. To be fair to the state court, the federal judge won't stop the whole Missouri case, just block them from using evidence that doesn't leave out the settled claims.

And, while the Anti-Injunction Act, 28 USC § 2283, limits the federal courts' authority to enjoin state court proceedings, the Act authorizes a federal court to enjoin such proceedings when expressly authorized by statute, where necessary in aid of the federal court's jurisdiction, or where necessary to protect or effectuate the court's judgments.

Yes, the Anti-Injunction Act permits an MDL court to enjoin a state court proceeding under these circumstances. The court has authority under the 'in aid of jurisdiction' exception to the Anti-Injunction Act to protect its proceedings and judgments. The massive, consummated PI and TPP settlements, worth nearly five billion dollars, function as a 'res' or 'quasi-res' that the federal court has a duty to protect. The Missouri state case, by seeking to recover damages attributable to claims that Merck has already paid to settle, threatens the finality and value of those MDL settlements. Allowing the Missouri case to proceed in this manner could result in an over-inclusive judgment, forcing Merck to pay twice for the same claims and undermining the 'peace' it purchased through settlement. Such a result would create a chilling effect on the willingness of defendants to enter into global settlements in future complex litigation, thereby impairing the federal court's ability to efficiently manage and resolve MDL cases. Therefore, a narrowly tailored injunction is necessary to prevent the Missouri plaintiffs from introducing evidence or recovering damages attributable to the already-settled claims.

Yes, the federal MDL court has the authority to enjoin the Missouri state court plaintiffs under the All Writs Act and the Anti-Injunction Act's 'in aid of jurisdiction' exception, because the manner in which the plaintiffs are attempting to prove their claims threatens to encroach on the finality of the MDL settlements. The evidence the plaintiffs intend to present could potentially result in a judgment against Merck that includes damages attributable to claims that Merck has already settled, paid, and received releases for in the MDL. This would undermine the MDL court's ability to manage the litigation and interfere with its flexibility and authority to effectuate the global settlements. Principles of federalism and comity can be preserved by narrowly tailoring the injunction to prohibit the plaintiffs from offering evidence that does not sufficiently exclude damages attributable to the settled MDL claims, rather than enjoining the state court proceedings entirely.

In re Vioxx Product Liability Litigation

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot