Free Case Transferred In - District Transfer - District Court of California - California

Case 3:07-cv-03448-CRB

Document 1-12

Filed 07/02/2007

Page 1 of 19

1 Anthony G. Brazil (State Bar No. 84297)
2 Kanika D. Corley (State Bar No. 223607)

MORRS POLICH & PURDY LLP 3 1055 West Seventh Street, Suite 2400
4 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 891-9100

5 Facsimile: (213) 488-1178
6

Attorneys for Defendant

7 MCKESSON CORPORATION
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 10

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case No. 2:06-CV-02768-MCE-DAD

11 CAROL ANN DAVIES and HAY
12 DAVIES
13

Plaintiffs,
vs.

14
15

MERCK & COMPANY, INC., a Corporation; MCKESSON 16 CORPORATION; a Coi:oration; AMRISOURCEBERGEN
18

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIL

ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES OF DEFENDANT MCKESSON CORPORATION TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT;

17 CORPORATION, a CORPORATION; INC.,; PHACIA Corporation; PFIZER G. D. SEARE LLC, (FKA G.D.

PHACEUTICAL DEFENDANT 19 DOES 101 to 200; DISTRIBUTOR
20 DEFENDANT DOES 201 to 300, inclusive,
21

SEARE & CO.); DOES 1 to 100;

Defendants.

22

Defendant MCKESSON CORPORATION ("Defendant") files the following 24 Answer to the unverified Complaint ("Complaint") filed in the matter of CAROL ANN
25 DAVIES, et aL. v. MERCK & COMPANY, INC., et aL. (The term "Plaintiffs" as used

23

26 herein shall refer to CAROL ANN DAVIES and HAY DAVIES.) Defendant responds
27 to Plaintiffs' Complaint as follows:

28 III

L0071847 -1-

ANSWER AN AFFIRTIV DEFENSES OF DEFENDANT MCKESSON CORPORATION TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT; DEMA FOR JUY TRIL

Case 3:07-cv-03448-CRB

Document 1-12

Filed 07/02/2007

Page 2 of 19

1 INTRODUCTION
2 McKesson is a wholesale distributor of pharmaceuticals, over-the-counter and
3 health and beauty products to chain, independent pharmacy customers and hospitals. As a

4 wholesale distributor, McKesson distributes products manufactured by others. As to

5 VIOXXCI/CELEBREX/EXTRA, McKesson does not manufacture, produce, process,
6 test, encapsulate, label, package or repackage these products, nor does it make any
7 representations or warranties as to the products' safety or efficacy. McKesson lacks

8 information or knowledge sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations contained
9 in the introduction paragraph of the Complaint and therefore denies such allegations.
10 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

11 1. McKesson is a wholesale distributor of pharmaceuticals, over-the-counter
12 and health and beauty products to chain, independent pharmacy customers and hospitals.
13 As a wholesale distributor, McKesson distributes products manufactured by others. As to

14 VIOXXCI/CELEBREX/EXTRA, McKesson does not manufacture, produce, process,
15 test, encapsulate, label, package or repackage these products, nor does it make any

16 representations or warranties as to the products' safety or efficacy. McKesson lacks

1 7 information or knowledge sufficient to admit or deny the remçiining allegations contained

18 in Paragraph 1 of the Complaint, and its subparts and subparagraphs, and therefore denies

19 such allegations.
20 2. McKesson is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as
21 to the truth or falsity of the allegations of Paragraph 2 of the Complaint, and therefore

22 denies such allegations.

23 3. McKesson is a wholesale distributor of pharmaceuticals, over-the-counter
24 and health and beauty products to chain, independent pharmacy customers and hospitals.
25 As a wholesale distributor, McKesson distributes products manufactured by others. As to

26 VIOXXCI/CELEBREX/EXTRA, McKesson does not manufacture, produce, process,
27 test, encapsulate, label, package or repackage these products, nor does it make any

28 representations or warranties as to the products' safety or efficacy. McKesson lacks

L0071847 -2-

ANSWER AN AFFIRTIV DEFENSES OF DEFENDANT MCKESSON CORPORATION TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT; DEMA FOR JUY TRIL

Case 3:07-cv-03448-CRB

Document 1-12

Filed 07/02/2007

Page 3 of 19

1 information or knowledge sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations contained
2 in Paragraph 3 of the Complaint and therefore denies such allegations.

3 4. McKesson is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as
4 to the truth or falsity of the allegations of Paragraph 4 of the Complaint and its subparts

5 and subparagraphs, and therefore denies such allegations.

6 5. McKesson is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as
7 to the truth or falsity of the allegations of Paragraph 5 of the Complaint, and therefore

8 denies such allegations.

9 6. McKesson is a wholesale distributor of pharmaceuticals, over-the-counter
10 and health and beauty products to chain, independent pharmacy customers and hospitals.
11 As a wholesale distributor, McKesson distributes products manufactured by others. As to

12 VIOXXCI/CELEBREX/EXTRA, McKesson does not manufacture, produce, process,
13 test, encapsulate, label, package or repackage these products, nor does it make any

14 representations or warranties as to the products' safety or efficacy. McKesson lacks

15 information or knowledge sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations contained

16 in Paragraph 6 of the Complaint and its subparts and subparagraphs and therefore denies

17 such allegations.
18 7. McKesson is a wholesale distributor of pharmaceuticals, over-the-counter
19 and health and beauty products to chain, independent pharmacy customers and hospitals.
20 As a wholesale distributor, McKesson distributes products manufactured by others. As to

21 VIOXXCI/CELEBREX/EXTRA, McKesson does not manufacture, produce, process,
22 test, encapsulate, label, package or repackage these products, nor does it make any

23 representations or warranties as to the products' safety or efficacy. McKesson lacks

24 information or knowledge sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations contained

25 in Paragraph 7 of the Complaint and its subparts and subparagraphs, and therefore denies

26 such allegations.

27 III 28 III

L0071847 -3-

ANSWER AN AFFIRTIV DEFENSES OF DEFENDANT MCKESSON CORPORATION TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT; DEMA FOR JUY TRIL

Case 3:07-cv-03448-CRB

Document 1-12

Filed 07/02/2007

Page 4 of 19

1 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
2 FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
3 8. The Complaint and all causes of action asserted against Defendant fail to

4 state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

5 SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
6 9. Federal law preempts Plaintiffs' claims. Plaintiffs have asserted claims for
7 relief which, if granted, would constitute an impermissible burden by this Court on
8 Federal laws, regulations, and policies relating to the development and marketing of
9 products, in violation of the Supremacy Clause, Aricle VI of the Constitution of the

10 United States.

11 THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
12 10. The causes of action alleged in the Complaint are barred by the applicable

13 statutes of limitations and/or statutes of repose, including but not limited to California
14 Code of

Civil Procedure §§ 335.1 and 338 and former § 340(3), California Business and

15 Professions Code § 17208, and California Civil Code § 1783.
16 FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE

DEFENSE

17 11. During the time periods alleged in the Complaint, Plaintiffs failed to
18 exercise ordinary care on Plaintiffs' own behalf for Plaintiffs' safety. Plaintiffs'
19 recklessness, carelessness andlor negligence caused any injury and damage that Plaintiff
20 may have sustained. Plaintiffs' right to recover should be diminished by Plaintiffs'
21 proportional share of fault.

22 FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
23 12. Plaintiffs failed to mitigate any damage that Plaintiffs may have sustained. 24 Plaintiffs failed to exercise reasonable care to avoid the consequences of harm, if any.
25 Among other things, Plaintiffs failed to use reasonable diligence in caring for any injury,

26 use reasonable means to prevent aggravation of any injury, and/or take reasonable

27 precautions to reduce any injury and damage.

28 III

L0071847 -4-

ANSWER AN AFFIRTIV DEFENSES OF DEFENDANT MCKESSON CORPORATION TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT; DEMA FOR JUY TRIL

Case 3:07-cv-03448-CRB

Document 1-12

Filed 07/02/2007

Page 5 of 19

1 SIXTH AFFIRMTIVE DEFENSE
2 13. During the time periods alleged in the Complaint, Plaintiffs had full

3 knowledge of the risks and possible adverse effects pertaining to the use of the products.
4 Defendant alleges that part or all of

the injuries, damages, or losses, if any, that Plaintiffs

5 claim to have sustained arose from or were caused by such risks. Plaintiffs were aware

6 of, accepted, and assumed the risks and possible adverse effects. Plaintiffs' recovery, if
7 any, should be diminished, reduced, offset, or barred by Plaintiffs' assumption of the
8 risks and informed consent.

9 SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
10 14. Defendant denies that Plaintiffs suffered injuries or incurred any damages, or

11 that any defendant is liable. If Plaintiffs did suffer any injuries or incur any damages, any

12 injuries or damages were caused, in whole or in part, by the acts or omissions of persons
13 or entities other than Defendant or superseding or intervening causes over which

14 Defendant had no control. If there is any negligence or liability by any defendant, it is the
15 sole and exclusive negligence and liability of others and not this answering Defendant.

16 EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
17 15. The intervening or superseding cause of any injury allegedly sustained by
18 the Plaintiffs may be conduct which is ilicit, criminal, or otherwise improper, and for

19 which conduct Defendant cannot be held responsible.

20 NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
21 16. Plaintiffs' alleged damages, injuries, or losses, if any, were not proximately
22 caused by any alleged act, omission, or breach of duty by Defendant but were caused in
23 whole or in part by the acts or omissions of Plaintiffs and/or others so that the principles
24 of contributory negligence, comparative fault and/or assumption of

the risk apply.

25 TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
26 17. Plaintiffs' claims are barred in whole or in part because they have been
27 improperly joined in this action.

28 III

L0071847 -5-

ANSWER AN AFFIRTIV DEFENSES OF DEFENDANT MCKESSON CORPORATION TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT; DEMA FOR JUY TRIL

Case 3:07-cv-03448-CRB

Document 1-12

Filed 07/02/2007

Page 6 of 19

1

ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
18. If any of the other parties are negligent, legally responsible, or otherwise at

2
3

fault for the damages alleged in the Master Complaint, and if there is a finding of any

4
5

liability in favor of Plaintiffs or settlement or judgment against Defendant, Defendant

requests that the Court or Jury make an apportionment of fault among all parties as
permitted by Li v. Yellow Cab Co. and American Motorcycle Association v. Superior
Court. Defendant fuher requests a judgment and declaration of partial indemnification
and contribution against all other parties or persons in accordance with the apportionment
of fault.

6

7
8

9 10
11

TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
19. Plaintiffs' claims are barred in whole or in part because they have been filed

12
13

II an improper venue.

THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
20. Plaintiffs' alleged injuries were the direct and proximate result of an

14
15

idiosyncratic reaction which was not reasonably foreseeable, or was not the result of any
conduct or negligence on the part of

16
17
18

Defendant; andlor was not the result of any defect in

any product distributed or sold by Defendant.

FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

19

21. The hazards of foreseeable uses and misuses of the product are open and
obvious.

20
21

FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
22. After the products left the possession and control of Defendant, if in fact any

22
23

products were ever in the possession or control of Defendant, the products were

24
25

redesigned, modified, altered, or subjected to treatment that substantially changed their

character without Defendant's knowledge. Any alleged defect resulted, if at all, from the
redesign, modification, alteration, treatment or other change of the products after
Defendant relinquished possession of and control over any of the products.
III

26
27
28

L0071847 -6-

ANSWER AN AFFIRTIV DEFENSES OF DEFENDANT MCKESSON CORPORATION TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT; DEMA FOR JUY TRIL

Case 3:07-cv-03448-CRB

Document 1-12

Filed 07/02/2007

Page 7 of 19

1 SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2 23. The design, manufacture, and marketing of the products were in conformity

3 with the "state of the art" existing at the time of such design, manufacture, and marketing.

4 SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
5 24. The learned intermediary doctrine bars Plaintiffs' recovery of any damages.

6 Any duty to warn Plaintiffs of the risks and hazards associated with the products was
7 discharged by providing adequate warning to physicians.

8 EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
9 25. To the extent that Plaintiffs allege a failure to warn by Defendant, Defendant

10 alleges that the manufacturers, physician, and other health care providers associated with
11 the products knew, or should have been aware, of any risk and hazard that Plaintiffs

12 andlor Plaintiffs' decedent alleges rendered the products defective and that allegedly
13 caused Plaintiffs' and/or Plaintiffs' decedent's injuries and damages, if any. To the
14 extent that such manufacturers, physician, and other health care providers failed to

15 advise, inform, or warn Plaintiffs of such risks and hazards, such failure is imputed to
16 Plaintiffs under agency principles and Plaintiffs and/or Plaintiffs' decedent knowingly
17 and voluntarily assumed the risk of any injury as a result of the consumption of,
18 administration of, or exposure to the product.

19 NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
20 26. The Complaint is barred due to the lack of privity, or a "transaction,"
21 between Plaintiffs and Defendant.

22 TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
23 27. This Court lacks personal jurisdiction over this answering Defendant.

24 TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
25 28. Plaintiffs' claims are barred in whole or in part by the doctrines of accord
26 and satisfaction, good faith, consent, res judicata, payment and release, waiver, collateral

27 estoppel, judicial estoppel, equitable estoppel, unclean hands, laches, and/or statutory and
28 regulatory compliance.

L0071847 -7-

ANSWER AN AFFIRTIV DEFENSES OF DEFENDANT MCKESSON CORPORATION TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT; DEMA FOR JUY TRIL

Case 3:07-cv-03448-CRB

Document 1-12

Filed 07/02/2007

Page 8 of 19

1 TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2 29. The products were not used in the manner in which they were intended to be

3 used. The products were used in a manner that was abnormal and not reasonably

4 foreseeable by Defendant. Such misuse of the products proximately caused or
5 contributed to Plaintiffs' alleged damages, injuries, and losses, if any.

6 TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
7 30. The imposition of punitive or exemplary damages against Defendant or that

8 are in any way imputed against the interests of Defendant would violate the ruling in
9 State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co. v. Campbell (2003) 538 U.S. 408, and Defendant's

10 constitutional rights under: the Due Process clauses in the Fifth and Fourteenth
11 Amendments to the Constitution of the United States; the Sixth Amendment to the
12 Constitution of

the United States; the Double Jeopardy clause in the Fifth Amendment to

13 the Constitution of the United States; comparable provisions contained within the

14 California Constitution; the common law and public policies of California; and applicable
15 statutes and court rules, including but not limited to, imposition of punitive damages and

16 determination of such an award:

17 (a) by a jury when the jury is: (i) not given standards of sufficient clarity for

18 determining the appropriateness, and the appropriate size, of a punitive 19 damages award; (ii) not adequately and clearly instructed on the limits on 20 punitive damages imposed by the principles of deterrence and punishment;

21 (iii) not expressly prohibited from awarding punitive damages, or
22 determining the amount of such an award, in whole or in part, on the basis of

23 invidiously discriminatory characteristics, including the corporate status, 24 wealth, or state of residence of Defendant; (iv) permitted to award punitive 25 damages under a standard for determining liability for such damages which 26 is vague and arbitrary and does not define with sufficient clarity the conduct 27 or mental state which makes punitive damages permissible; and (v) not
28

L0071847 -8-

ANSWER AN AFFIRTIV DEFENSES OF DEFENDANT MCKESSON CORPORATION TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT; DEMA FOR JUY TRIL

Case 3:07-cv-03448-CRB

Document 1-12

Filed 07/02/2007

Page 9 of 19

1 subject to trial court and appellate judicial review for reasonableness, the
2 furtherance of legitimate purpose, and the basis of objective standards;
3 (b) where applicable law is impermissibly vague, imprecise, or inconsistent;

4 (c) subject to no predetermined limit, such as a maximum multiple of

5 compensatory damages or a maximum amount; and
6 (d) based upon anything other than Defendant's conduct in connection with the

7 sale of the products alleged in this litigation, or in any other way subjecting
8 Defendant to impermissible multiple punishment for the same alleged

9 wrong.
10 TWENTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
11 31. While continuing to deny any and all liability, Defendant states that if the
12 court determines that Plaintiffs are entitled to assert a claim for punitive damages, such
13 claim cannot be permitted to go forward until the trier of fact determines that punitive

14 damages should be considered, and, ultimately all issues regarding punitive damages
15 should be bifurcated at triaL. Any award for punitive or exemplary damage absent

16 bifurcating trial as to issues of compensatory and exemplary damages would be in
17 violation of Defendant's rights to due process under the Unites States Constitution and
18 the correlative provisions of California law.

19 TWENTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
20 32. At all times, any products distributed by Defendant were distributed in
21 compliance with all applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations, and rules
22 promulgated and enforced by the Food and Drug Administration. The products were

23 subject to and received pre-market approval by the Food and Drug Administration under

24 52 Stat. 1040, 21 U.S.C. § 301. Compliance with such laws, regulations, and rules

25 demonstrates that due care and reasonable prudence were exercised in the design,
26 manufacture, and promotion of the subj ect pharmaceutical product and that said product

27 was not defective in any way.

28 III

L0071847 -9-

ANSWER AN AFFIRTIV DEFENSES OF DEFENDANT MCKESSON CORPORATION TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT; DEMA FOR JUY TRIL

Case 3:07-cv-03448-CRB

Document 1-12

Filed 07/02/2007

Page 10 of 19

1 TWENTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2 33. Any damages, injuries and/or losses alleged to have been suffered by
3 Plaintiffs have been mitigated, in whole or in part, by reimbursement from collateral

4 sources and therefore, Plaintiffs' claims against Defendant are barred and/or reduced by

5 any applicable set off.

6 TWENTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
7 34. At all times, Defendant's acts or omissions were privileged, justified, fair

8 and undertaken in the good faith exercise of a valid business purpose.

9 TWENTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
10 35. Plaintiffs cannot demonstrate the necessary elements to support the request

11 for injunctive relief, including without limitation, a threat of imminent or immediate
12 harm.

13 TWENTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
14 36. Any alleged act or omission by Defendant concerning the manufacture,
15 warning, labeling, advertising and sale ofVIOXXCI/CELEBREXlEXTRA referred to in
16 the Complaint, was at all times, the duty of an entity other than Defendant. Defendant
1 7 acted in good faith concerning all services for which it had a duty to provide as referred

18 to in the Complaint.

19 THIRTIETH AFFIRATIVE DEFENSE
20 37. Plaintiffs' claims for disgorgement or restitution are barred under the
21 decision in Kraus v. Trinity Management Services, Inc. (2000) 23 CalAth 116 and related

22 authority.

23 THIRTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
24 38. Plaintiffs' alleged injuries or ilnesses preexisted or were suffered after the
25 alleged use of the products, and Plaintiffs' alleged injuries or ilnesses were neither

26 caused nor exacerbated by said alleged use.

27 III 28 III

L0071847 -10-

ANSWER AN AFFIRTIV DEFENSES OF DEFENDANT MCKESSON CORPORATION TO

PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT; DEMA FOR JUY TRI

Case 3:07-cv-03448-CRB

Document 1-12

Filed 07/02/2007

Page 11 of 19

1 THIRTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2 39. Plaintiffs' injuries were caused or contributed to by their failure to follow
3 the directions and precautions provided by the product's manufacturer(s).

4 THIRTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
5 40. Plaintiffs' breach of warranty claims are barred because Plaintiffs failed to
6 give adequate and timely notice of his alleged claims against Defendant and/or because
7 the alleged warranties were disclaimed.

8 THIRTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
9 41. Defendant's alleged business practices with respect to the subject product

10 were lawful, fair, truthful, not misleading or deceptive, not fraudulent, and were justified
11 based on the state of medical and scientific knowledge available during the relevant time

12 and were in compliance with the applicable laws, regulations, and rules within the

13 meaning of either Business and Professions Code Section 17200, et seq. or Business and

14 Professions Code Section 17500, et seq.

15 THIRTY- FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
16 42. Plaintiffs' claimed injuries andlor damages are so remote, speculative or
17 contingent that Plaintiffs' claims must be barred on public policy grounds.

18 THIRTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
19 43. The conduct alleged in the Complaint does not plead a "violation of law"
20 sufficient to provide the necessary predicate for an "unlawful" business practices claim,
21 or any other claim, under either Business and Professions Code Section 17200, et seq. or
22 Business and Professions Code Section 17500 et seq.

23 THIRTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
24 44. Plaintiffs' claims under Business and Professions Code Section 17200, et

25 seq. or Business and Professions Code Section 17500 et seq. are barred in whole or in
26 part under principles of substantive and procedural due process.

27 THIRTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
28 45. Plaintiffs' claims under Business and Professions Code Section 17200, et

L0071847 -11-

ANSWER AN AFFIRTIV DEFENSES OF DEFENDANT MCKESSON CORPORATION TO

PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT; DEMA FOR JUY TRIL

Case 3:07-cv-03448-CRB

Document 1-12

Filed 07/02/2007

Page 12 of 19

1 seq. or Business and Professions Code Section 17500, et seq. are bared in whole or in

2 part because Plaintiffs do not qualify as private attorneys general, and for that reason,
3 among others, lack standing to prosecute a claim for injunctive or monetary relief.

4 THIRTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
5 46. Plaintiffs' claims under Business and Professions Code Section 17200, et
6 seq. or Business and Professions Code Section 17500, et seq. are barred in whole or in

7 part because there is no basis for injunctive relief in this action and Plaintiffs have an
8 adequate remedy at law.

9 FORTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
10 47. Plaintiffs' claims under Business and Professions Code Section 17200, et

11 seq. or Business and Professions Code Section 17500, et seq. are bared in whole or in
12 part by the doctrine of primary jurisdiction. The subject of pharmaceutical product and

13 any advertising regarding such product are regulated by the Food and Drug
14 Administration and as such, answering Defendant requests that this Court, sitting in

15 equity, abstain from hearing claims under Sections 17200, et seq. and 17500, et seq.,
16 which are accordingly preempted by Federal

law.

17 FORTY-FIRST A FFIRMTIVE DEFENSE
18 48. The Plaintiffs are barred from recovery against Defendant because of the

19 sophisticated user doctrine.

20 FORTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
21 49. Plaintiffs' strict liability claims are barred under the principles set forth in
22 Brown v. Superior Court (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1088.

23 FORTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
24 50. Plaintiffs' claim, if any, for loss of consortium is barred because it is
25 derivative of the injured Plaintiffs'ldecedent's claim, which fails pursuant to the

26 affirmative defenses set forth herein.

27 FORTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
28 51. Defendant is a provider of services, not products, and thus is not strictly

L0071847 -12-

ANSWER AN AFFIRTIV DEFENSES OF DEFENDANT MCKESSON CORPORATION TO

PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAIT; DEMA FOR JUY TRIL

Case 3:07-cv-03448-CRB

Document 1-12

Filed 07/02/2007

Page 13 of 19

1 liable under California law.

2 FORTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
3 52. Plaintiffs' Complaint fails to allege ultimate facts sufficient to state a cause
4 of action predicated upon negligence, strict liability, breach of implied warranty, breach
5 of express warranty, failure to warn or deceit by concealment.

6 FORTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
7 53. Plaintiffs' claims of any non-economic damages are subject to California

8 Civil Code § 1431.2, which is applicable to the Complaint and each cause of action
9 therein.

10 FORTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
11 54. The product at issue in this litigation is not defective or unreasonably
12 dangerous because it is a prescription pharmaceutical bearing adequate warnings, and is

13 subject to the comment j exception to strict liability as set forth in § 402A of the
14 Restatement (Second) of Torts (1965), and/or because it is a prescription pharmaceutical
15 that is unavoidably unsafe pursuant to comment k of § 402A of the Restatement (Second)
16 of Torts

(1965).

17 FORTY-EIGHT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
18 55. Plaintiffs' claims are barred in whole or in part because the subject
19 pharmaceutical product "provides net benefits for a class of patients" within the meaning
20 of Comment fto Section 6 of the Restatement (Third) of

Torts: Products Liability.

21 FORTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
22 56. Plaintiffs' claims are barred under Section 4, et seq., of the Restatement
23 (Third) of

Torts: Products Liability.

24 FIFTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
25 57. Plaintiffs' claims, if any, related to negligence per se are barred, in whole or
26 in part, because there is no statute violated by this Defendant.

27 FIFTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
28 58. Plaintiffs' claims are barred in whole or in part by the deference given to the

L0071847 -13-

ANSWER AN AFFIRTIV DEFENSES OF DEFENDANT MCKESSON CORPORATION TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT; DEMA FOR JUY TRIL

Case 3:07-cv-03448-CRB

Document 1-12

Filed 07/02/2007

Page 14 of 19

1 primary jurisdiction of the Food and Drug Administration over the subject

2 pharmaceutical product under applicable federal laws, regulations, and rules. These
3 claims are thus preempted by Federal

law.

4 FIFTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
5 59. Plaintiffs' claims are barred in whole or in part because there is no private
6 right of action concerning matters regulated by the Food and Drug Administration under
7 applicable federal

laws, regulations, and rules.

8 FIFTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
9 60. Plaintiffs' claims are barred in whole or in part because Plaintiffs lack
10 standing to bring such claims.

11 FIFTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
12 61. Plaintiffs' claims are barred in whole or in part because they fail to meet the
13 requirements of California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 377.30, et seq., and 377.60, et

14 seq., governing a decedent's cause of action and wrongful death actions.

15 FIFTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
16 62. Plaintiffs' claims are barred to the extent they are made by, or on behalf of,
1 7 out of state Plaintiffs or Plaintiffs' decedent, or arose from events occurring out of state,

18 are barred in whole or in part under principles of forum non conveniens and due process.

19 FIFTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
20 63. Plaintiffs' claims are barred in whole or in part because the Complaint fails
21 to join necessary and indispensable parties.

22 FIFTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
23 64. Plaintiffs' Consumer Legal Remedies Act cause of action is barred because

24 it fails to meet the requirements of California Civil Code §§ 1750, et seq.

25 FIFTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
26 65. Defendant did not design, manufacture, formulate, distribute, market, sell,
27 research, develop, test or supply the VIOXXCI/CELEBREXIEXTRA that was alleged
28 to have been ingested by Plaintiffs andlor any of

L0071847 -14-

the ingredients contained therein.

ANSWER AN AFFIRTIV DEFENSES OF DEFENDANT MCKESSON CORPORATION TO

PLAITIFFS' COMPLAINT; DEMA FOR JUY TRI

Case 3:07-cv-03448-CRB

Document 1-12

Filed 07/02/2007

Page 15 of 19

1 FIFTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2 66. Plaintiffs failed to allege specific facts that Defendant distributed and/or
3 supplied the subject product that Plaintiffs allegedly ingested. Accordingly, Plaintiffs
4 failed to plead facts sufficient to show an actual connection between Defendant's alleged

5 conduct and the Plaintiffs' purported injury and Defendant has, therefore, been
6 fraudulently joined.

7 SIXTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
8 67. Plaintiffs' vague allegations are legal conclusions directed at "defendants" in
9 general and fail to support any claims specific to Defendant.

10 SIXTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE.
11 68. Plaintiffs' claims are barred by the applicable prescriptive periods or statutes
12 of limitations provided for such claims.

13 SIXTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
14 69. Defendant denies that the products distributed by it caused or contributed to
15 the alleged injuries of Plaintiffs and further denies that it is liable to Plaintiffs for the
16 claims alleged or for any other claims whatsoever.

17 SIXTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
18 70. Defendant did not make any material representation of fact regarding the

19 products it distributes which was not true, or if such representation was made, which
20 Defendant specifically denies, then McKesson did not make such representation with the

21 intent to either deceive or to induce Plaintiffs to act in justifiable reliance.

22 SIXTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
23 71. Plaintiffs did not justifiably rely, in any fashion whatsoever, upon any
24 statement, representation, advice or conduct of McKesson, and did not act upon any
25 statement, representation advice or conduct to their detriment.

26 SIXTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
27 72. Defendant asserts that as of the relevant times alleged in the Complaint, it

28 did not know and, in light of the then existing reasonable available scientific and

L0071847 -15-

ANSWER AN AFFIRTIV DEFENSES OF DEFENDANT MCKESSON CORPORATION TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT; DEMA FOR JUY TRIL

Case 3:07-cv-03448-CRB

Document 1-12

Filed 07/02/2007

Page 16 of 19

1 technological knowledge, could not have known of: (1) the design characteristics, if any,

2 that allegedly caused the injuries and damages complained of in the Petition; (2) the
3 alleged danger of any such design characteristics.

4 SIXTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
5 73. Plaintiffs' claims are barred, in whole or in part, to the extent Plaintiffs, or
6 any state entity acting on behalf of Plaintiffs, has released, settled, entered into an accord
7 and satisfaction or otherwise compromised Plaintiffs' claims.

8 SIXTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
9 74. Defendant is entitled to set-off, should any damages be awarded against it, in

10 the amount of damages or settlement amounts recovered by Plaintiffs, or any state entity

11 acting on behalf of Plaintiffs, with respect to the same alleged injuries. Defendant is also

12 entitled to have any damages that may be awarded to Plaintiffs reduced by the value of
13 any benefit or payment to Plaintiffs, or any state entity acting on behalf of Plaintiffs, from

14 any collateral source.

15 SIXTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMTIVE DEFENSE
16 75. Defendant asserts that it has complied with all applicable state and federal
17 laws relating to the distribution and/or sale of

pharmaceuticals.

18 SIXTY-NINTH AFFIRMTIVE DEFENSE
19 76. To the extent Plaintiffs assert claims based upon an alleged failure by
20 Defendant to warn Plaintiffs directly of alleged dangers associated with the use of
21 VIOXXCI/CELEBREXIEXTRA, such claims are barred under the learned intermediar

22 doctrine.

23 SEVENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
24 77. Defendant reserves the right to rely upon other affirmative defenses as they

25 become reasonably available and apparent during the discovery proceedings in this case.

26 Defendant reserves the right to amend this Answer to assert any such defenses.

27 III 28 III

L0071847 -16-

ANSWER AN AFFIRTIVE DEFENSES OF DEFENDANT MCKESSON CORPORATION TO

PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT; DEMA FOR JUY TRIL

Case 3:07-cv-03448-CRB

Document 1-12

Filed 07/02/2007

Page 17 of 19

1 WHEREFORE, MCKESSON prays for relief as follows:
2 1. That Plaintiffs take nothing by this action;
3 2. That judgment be entered in favor of

MCKESSON and against Plaintiffs;

4 3. That MCKESSON be awarded costs of suit herein; and
5 4. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

6

7 Dated: December ~, 2006
8

Respectfully Submitted,

MORRS POLICH & PURDY LLP
By: Isl Kanika D. Corley. Esq.
Anthony G. Brazil

9 10
11

12
13

Kanika D. Corley Attorneys for Defendant MCKESSON CORPORATION

14
15

TUCKER ELLIS & WEST LLP
By: Isl Peter E. Schnaitman. Esq.
Michael C. Zellers (State Bar No. 146904) Peter E. Schnaitman (State Bar No. 218982)
Tae- Y oon Kim (State Bar No. 209934)

16 17
18

19

20
21

Tucker Ellis & West LLP
1000 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1800

Los Angeles, CA 90017-2475
Telephone: (213) 430-3400
Facsimile: (213) 430-3409

22
23

24
25

E-mail: michael.zellers~tuckerellis.com E-mail: peter.schnaitman~tuckerellis.com E-mail: tae.kim~tuckerellis.com

26 27
28

Attorneys for Defendant MCKESSON CORPORATION

L0071851 -17-

ANSWER AN AFFIRTIV DEFENSES OF DEFENDANT MCKESSON CORPORATION TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT; DEMA FOR JUY TRIL

Case 3:07-cv-03448-CRB

Document 1-12

Filed 07/02/2007

Page 18 of 19

1 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
2 Defendants hereby demand trial by jury in this matter.
3

4 Dated: December ~, 2006
5

Respectfully Submitted,

MORRS POLICH & PURDY LLP
By: Isl Kanika D. Corley
Anthony G. Brazil

6 7
8

9 10
11

Kanika D. Corley Attorneys for Defendant MCKESSON CORPORATION

12
13

TUCKER ELLIS & WEST LLP
By: Isl Peter E. Schnaitman. Esq.
Michael C. Zellers (State Bar No. 146904) Peter E. Schnaitman (State Bar No. 218982) Tae-Yoon Kim (State Bar No. 209934) Tucker Ells & West LLP 1000 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1800 Los Angeles, CA 90017-2475
Telephone: (213) 430-3400
Facsimile: (213) 430-3409

14
15

16 17 18 19

20
21

E-mail: michael.zellers~tuckerellis.com E-mail: peter.schnaitman~tuckerellis.com

E-mail: tae.kim~tuckerellis.com

22
23

Attorneys for Defendant MCKESSON CORPORATION

24
25

26

27
28

L0071847 -18-

ANSWER AN AFFIRTIV DEFENSES OF DEFENDANT MCKESSON CORPORATION TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT; DEMA FOR JUY TRIL

Case 3:07-cv-03448-CRB

Document 1-12

Filed 07/02/2007

Page 19 of 19

1

ELECTRONIC PROOF OF SERVICE
I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of eighteen (18) years and am not a pary to the within action.

2
3

4
5

On December 12,2006, pursuant to the Cour's Electronic Filing System, I
~ submitted an electronic version of the following document via file transfer protocol t ECF (Electronic Case Filing)

6 7
8

D submitted a hard copy of the following document to ECF (Electronic Case Filing) by

D facsimile

D

overnght delivery

9
10
11

"ANSWER AND AFFIRMTIVE DEFENSES OF DEFENDANT MCKESSON CORPORATION TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL"

12
13

D STATE I declare under penalty of perjur under the laws of the state of California, that the above i
true and correct.

14

~ FEDERAL I declare that I am employed in the offce of a member of the bar of this cour at whos
15

direction the service was made

16

Executed on December 12, 2006, at Los Angeles, Californa.

17
18

19

20
21

L~ ta-LP- . Elena Ju e -Holg" Û

/~ttrr,i ß .

22
23

24
25

26 27
28
-1ELECTRONIC PROOF OF SERVICE