Free Answer to Complaint - District Court of California - California

Case 3:07-cv-02631-CRB

Document 4

Filed 10/08/2007

Page 1 of 43

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Gordon & Rees, LLP 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111

AMY W. SCHULMAN DLA PIPER LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 335-4500 Facsimile: (212) 335-4501 [email protected] STUART M. GORDON (SBN: 037477) GORDON & REES LLP Embarcadero Center West 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 986-5900 Facsimile: (415) 986-8054 [email protected] MICHAEL C. ZELLERS (SBN: 146904) TUCKER ELLIS & WEST LLP 515 South Flower Street, Suite 4200 Los Angeles, CA 90071-2223 Telephone: (213) 430-3400 Facsimile: (213) 430-3409 [email protected] Attorneys for Defendants PFIZER INC., PHARMACIA CORPORATION, AND G.D. SEARLE LLC UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION IN RE CELEBREX AND BEXTRA MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION This document relates to LOUIS ROMANELLI, Plaintiff, vs. PFIZER, INC., PHARMACIA CORPORATION, G.D. SEARLE LLC, and MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) MDL Docket No. 1699 CASE NO. 3:07-cv-02631-CRB PFIZER INC., PHARMACIA CORPORATION, AND G.D. SEARLE, LLC'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT JURY DEMAND ENDORSED HEREIN

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-1ANSWER TO COMPLAINT ­ 3:07-cv-02631-CRB

Case 3:07-cv-02631-CRB

Document 4

Filed 10/08/2007

Page 2 of 43

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Gordon & Rees, LLP 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111

NOW COME Defendants Pfizer Inc. (improperly captioned in Plaintiff's Complaint as "Pfizer, Inc.") ("Pfizer"), Pharmacia Corporation (f/k/a "Monsanto Company"1) ("Pharmacia"), and G.D. Searle LLC ("Searle") (collectively "Defendants"), and file this Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint ("Complaint"), and would respectfully show the Court as follows: I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT The Complaint does not state in sufficient detail when Plaintiff was prescribed or used Bextra® (valdecoxib) ("Bextra®"). Accordingly, this Answer can only be drafted generally. Defendants may seek leave to amend this Answer when discovery reveals the specific time periods in which Plaintiff was prescribed and used Bextra®. II. ANSWER Answering the unnumbered paragraph preceding Paragraph 1 of the Complaint, Defendants admit that Plaintiff brought this civil action seeking monetary damages, but deny that Plaintiff is entitled to any relief or damages. Defendants admit that, during certain periods of time, Pfizer and Pharmacia marketed and co-promoted Bextra® in the United States to be prescribed by healthcare providers who are by law authorized to prescribe drugs in accordance with their approval by the FDA. Defendants admit that, during certain periods of time, Bextra® was manufactured and packaged for Searle, which developed, tested, marketed, co-promoted and distributed Bextra® in the United States to be prescribed by healthcare providers who are by law authorized to prescribe drugs in accordance with their approval by the FDA. Defendants state that Bextra® was and is safe and effective when used in accordance with its FDA-

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
1

Plaintiff's Complaint names "Monsanto Company" as a Defendant. Defendants state that in 1933, an entity known as Monsanto Company ("1933 Monsanto") was incorporated under the laws of Delaware. On March 31, 2000, 1933 Monsanto changed its name to Pharmacia Corporation. On February 9, 2000, a separate company, Monsanto Ag Company, was incorporated under the laws of Delaware. On March 31, 2000, Monsanto Ag Company changed its name to Monsanto Company ("2000 Monsanto"). The 2000 Monsanto is engaged in the agricultural business and does not and has not ever designed, produced, manufactured, sold, resold, or distributed Bextra®. Given that Plaintiff alleges in the Complaint that Monsanto Company was involved in distributing Bextra®, see PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT at ¶ 5, Defendants assume Plaintiff means to refer to 1933 Monsanto. As a result, Pharmacia will respond to the allegations directed at Monsanto Company. -2ANSWER TO COMPLAINT ­ 3:07-cv-02631-CRB

Case 3:07-cv-02631-CRB

Document 4

Filed 10/08/2007

Page 3 of 43

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Gordon & Rees, LLP 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111

approved prescribing information. Defendants state that the potential effects of Bextra® were and are adequately described in its FDA-approved prescribing information, which was at all times adequate and comported with applicable standards of care and law. Defendants deny any wrongful conduct, deny that Bextra® caused Plaintiff injury or damage, and deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. Response to Allegations Regarding Parties 1. Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations regarding Plaintiff's age and citizenship, and, therefore, deny the same. Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations regarding whether Plaintiff used Bextra® and Plaintiff's medical condition, and, therefore, deny the same. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 2. Defendants admit that Pfizer is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

business in New York. Defendants admit that Pharmacia acquired Searle in 2000 and that, as the result of a merger in April 2003, Searle and Pharmacia became subsidiaries of Pfizer. Defendants admit that, during certain periods of time, Pfizer marketed and co-promoted Bextra® in the United States, including California, to be prescribed by healthcare providers who are by law authorized to prescribe drugs in accordance with their approval by the FDA. Defendants state that Plaintiff's allegations regarding "predecessors in interest" are vague and ambiguous. Defendants are without knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of such allegations, and, therefore, deny the same. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 3. Defendants admit that Searle is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal

place of business in Illinois. Defendants admit that, during certain periods of time, Bextra® was manufactured and packaged for Searle, which developed, tested, marketed, co-promoted and distributed Bextra® in the United States to be prescribed by healthcare providers who are by law authorized to prescribe drugs in accordance with their approval by the FDA. Defendants

-3ANSWER TO COMPLAINT ­ 3:07-cv-02631-CRB

Case 3:07-cv-02631-CRB

Document 4

Filed 10/08/2007

Page 4 of 43

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Gordon & Rees, LLP 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111

deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 4. Defendants admit that Pharmacia is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of

business in New Jersey. Defendants admit that, during certain periods of time, Pharmacia marketed and co-promoted Bextra® in the United States to be prescribed by healthcare providers who are by law authorized to prescribe drugs in accordance with their approval by the FDA. Defendants state that Plaintiff's allegations regarding "predecessors in interest" are vague and ambiguous. Defendants are without knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of such allegations, and, therefore, deny the same. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in this Paragraph of the Complaint. 5. Defendants admit that in 1933 an entity known as Monsanto Company ("1933

Monsanto") was incorporated under the laws of Delaware. On March 31, 2000, a subsidiary of 1933 Monsanto merged with Pharmacia & Upjohn, Inc, and 1933 Monsanto changed its name to Pharmacia Corporation. On February 9, 2000, a separate company, Monsanto Ag Company, was incorporated under the laws of Delaware. On March 31, 2000, Monsanto Ag Company changed its name to Monsanto Company ("2000 Monsanto"). The 2000 Monsanto is engaged in the agricultural business and does not and has not ever manufactured, marketed, sold, or distributed Bextra®. The 2000 Monsanto is not and has never been the parent of either Searle or Pharmacia. As the 2000 Monsanto does not and has not ever manufactured, marketed, sold, or distributed Bextra®, Defendants therefore state that the 2000 Monsanto is not a proper party in this matter. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. Defendants state that the response to this paragraph of the Complaint regarding Monsanto is incorporated by reference into Defendants' responses to each and every paragraph of the Complaint referring to Monsanto and/or Defendants. 6. Defendants state that Bextra® was and is safe and effective when used in accordance

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

with its FDA-approved prescribing information. Defendants state that the potential effects of Bextra® were and are adequately described in its FDA-approved prescribing information, which was at all times adequate and comported with applicable standards of care and law.

-4ANSWER TO COMPLAINT ­ 3:07-cv-02631-CRB

Case 3:07-cv-02631-CRB

Document 4

Filed 10/08/2007

Page 5 of 43

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Gordon & Rees, LLP 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111

Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations regarding whether Plaintiff used Bextra® and, therefore, deny the same. Defendants deny any wrongful conduct, deny that Bextra® is defective, and deny the remaining the allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 7. Defendants deny the allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. Response to Allegations Regarding Jurisdiction and Venue 8. Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint regarding Plaintiff's citizenship and the amount in controversy, and, therefore, deny the same. However, Defendants admit that Plaintiff claims that the parties are diverse and that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interests and costs. 9. Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

truth of the allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint regarding the judicial district in which the asserted claims allegedly arose, and, therefore, deny the same. Defendants deny committing a tort in the State of South Carolina or the State of California and deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 10. Defendants admit that, during certain periods of time, Pfizer and Pharmacia marketed

and co-promoted Bextra® in the United States to be prescribed by healthcare providers who are by law authorized to prescribe drugs in accordance with their approval by the FDA. Defendants admit that, during certain periods of time, Bextra® was manufactured and packaged for Searle, which developed, tested, marketed, co-promoted and distributed Bextra® in the United States to be prescribed by healthcare providers who are by law authorized to prescribe drugs in accordance with their approval by the FDA. Defendants admit that they provided FDA-

approved prescribing information regarding Bextra®. Defendants admit that they do business in the State of California. Defendants state that Plaintiff's allegations regarding "predecessors in interest" are vague and ambiguous. Defendants are without knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of such allegations, and, therefore, deny the same. Defendants deny

-5ANSWER TO COMPLAINT ­ 3:07-cv-02631-CRB

Case 3:07-cv-02631-CRB

Document 4

Filed 10/08/2007

Page 6 of 43

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Gordon & Rees, LLP 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111

any wrongful conduct and deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. Response to Allegations Regarding Interdistrict Assignment 11. Defendants state that this paragraph of the Complaint contains legal contentions to

which no response is required. To the extent that a response is deemed required, Defendants admit that this case should be transferred to In re: Bextra and Celebrex Marketing, Sales Prac. and Prods. Liab. Litig., MDL-1699, assigned to the Honorable Charles R. Breyer by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on September 6, 2005. Response to Factual Allegations 12. Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations regarding whether Plaintiff used Bextra® and, therefore, deny the same. Defendants deny the remaining allegations this paragraph of the Complaint. 13. Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

truth of the allegations regarding whether Plaintiff used Bextra® and, therefore, deny the same. Defendants state that Bextra® was and is safe and effective when used in accordance with its FDA-approved prescribing information. Defendants state that the potential effects of Bextra® were and are adequately described in its FDA-approved prescribing information, which was at all times adequate and comported with applicable standards of care and law. Defendants deny that Bextra® caused Plaintiff injury or damage and deny the remaining allegations this paragraph of the Complaint. 14. Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations regarding Plaintiff's medical condition and whether Plaintiff used Bextra® and, therefore, deny the same. Defendants deny any wrongful conduct, deny that Bextra® caused Plaintiff injury or damage, and deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 15. Defendants admit that Bextra® was expected to reach consumers without substantial

change from the time of sale. Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations regarding whether Plaintiff used Bextra® and,

-6ANSWER TO COMPLAINT ­ 3:07-cv-02631-CRB

Case 3:07-cv-02631-CRB

Document 4

Filed 10/08/2007

Page 7 of 43

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Gordon & Rees, LLP 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111

therefore, deny the same. Defendants deny the remaining allegations this paragraph of the Complaint. 16. Defendants state that Bextra® was and is safe and effective when used in accordance

with its FDA-approved prescribing information. Defendants state that the potential effects of Bextra® were and are adequately described in its FDA-approved prescribing information, which was at all times adequate and comported with applicable standards of care and law. Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations regarding whether Plaintiff used Bextra® and, therefore, deny the same. Defendants deny remaining the allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 17. Defendants admit that Bextra® is in a class of drugs that is, at times, referred to as non-

steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs ("NSAIDS"). Defendants state that Bextra® was and is safe and effective when used in accordance with its FDA-approved prescribing information. Defendants state that the potential effects of Bextra® were and are adequately described in its FDA-approved prescribing information, which was at all times adequate and comported with applicable standards of care and law. paragraph of the Complaint. 18. The allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint are not directed toward Defendants To the extent a response is deemed required, Defendants deny the remaining allegations in this

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

and, therefore, no response is required.

Defendants state that Plaintiff fails to provide the proper context for the allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. Defendants therefore lack sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of such allegations and, therefore, deny the same. 19. The allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint are not directed toward Defendants To the extent a response is deemed required,

and, therefore, no response is required.

Defendants state that Plaintiff fails to provide the proper context for the allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. Defendants therefore lack sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of such allegations and, therefore, deny the same. 20. The allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint are not directed toward Defendants

-7ANSWER TO COMPLAINT ­ 3:07-cv-02631-CRB

Case 3:07-cv-02631-CRB

Document 4

Filed 10/08/2007

Page 8 of 43

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Gordon & Rees, LLP 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111

and, therefore, no response is required.

To the extent a response is deemed required,

Defendants state that Plaintiff fails to provide the proper context for the allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. Defendants therefore lack sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of such allegations and, therefore, deny the same. 21. The allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint are not directed toward Defendants To the extent a response is deemed required,

and, therefore, no response is required.

Defendants state that Plaintiff fails to provide the proper context for the allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. Defendants therefore lack sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of such allegations and, therefore, deny the same. 22. Plaintiff fails to provide the proper context for the allegations in this paragraph of the

Complaint. Defendants lack sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of such allegations and, therefore, deny the same. 23. Defendants state that Plaintiff's allegations regarding "predecessors in interest" are

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

vague and ambiguous. Defendants are without knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of such allegations, and, therefore, deny the same. Defendants deny any wrongful conduct and deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 24. Plaintiff does not allege having used Celebrex® in this Complaint. Nevertheless,

Defendants admit that Celebrex® was launched in the United States in February 1999. Defendants state that Celebrex® was and is safe and effective when used in accordance with its FDA-approved prescribing information. Defendants admit that, during certain periods of time, Pfizer and Pharmacia marketed and co-promoted Celebrex® in the United States to be prescribed by healthcare providers who are by law authorized to prescribe drugs in accordance with their approval by the FDA. Defendants admit that, during certain periods of time,

Celebrex® was manufactured and packaged for Searle, which developed, tested, marketed, copromoted and distributed Celebrex® in the United States to be prescribed by healthcare providers who are by law authorized to prescribe drugs in accordance with their approval by the FDA. The allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint regarding Merck and Vioxx® are not

-8ANSWER TO COMPLAINT ­ 3:07-cv-02631-CRB

Case 3:07-cv-02631-CRB

Document 4

Filed 10/08/2007

Page 9 of 43

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Gordon & Rees, LLP 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111

directed toward Defendants and, therefore, no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, Defendants state that Plaintiff fails to provide the proper context for the allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint regarding Merck and Vioxx®. Defendants therefore lack sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of such allegations and, therefore, deny the same. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 25. Defendants admit that the New Drug Application for Bextra® was filed with the FDA

on January 15, 2001. Defendants admit, as indicated in the package insert approved by the FDA, that Bextra® is indicated for use in the relief of the signs and symptoms of osteoarthritis and adult rheumatoid arthritis, as well as for the treatment of primary dysmenorrhea. Defendants state that Plaintiff's allegations regarding "predecessors in interest" are vague and ambiguous. Defendants are without knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of such allegations, and, therefore, deny the same. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 26. Defendants admit that Bextra® was approved by the FDA on November 16, 2001.

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Defendants admit, as indicated in the package insert approved by the FDA, that Bextra® is indicated for use in the relief of the signs and symptoms of osteoarthritis and adult rheumatoid arthritis, as well as for the treatment of primary dysmenorrhea. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 27. Defendants admit, as indicated in the package insert approved by the FDA, that Bextra®

is indicated for use in the relief of the signs and symptoms of osteoarthritis and adult rheumatoid arthritis, as well as for the treatment of primary dysmenorrhea. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 28. Defendants admit, as indicated in the package insert approved by the FDA, that Bextra®

is indicated for use in the relief of the signs and symptoms of osteoarthritis and adult rheumatoid arthritis, as well as for the treatment of primary dysmenorrhea. Defendants state that Bextra® was and is safe and effective when used in accordance with its FDA-approved

-9ANSWER TO COMPLAINT ­ 3:07-cv-02631-CRB

Case 3:07-cv-02631-CRB

Document 4

Filed 10/08/2007

Page 10 of 43

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Gordon & Rees, LLP 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111

prescribing information. Defendants state that the potential effects of Bextra® were and are adequately described in its FDA-approved prescribing information, which at all times was adequate and comported with applicable standards of care and law. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 29. Defendants state that Bextra® was and is safe and effective when used in accordance

with its FDA-approved prescribing information. Defendants state that the potential effects of Bextra® were and are adequately described in its FDA-approved prescribing information, which at all times was adequate and comported with applicable standards of care and law. Defendants admit that, during certain periods of time, Pfizer and Pharmacia marketed and copromoted Bextra® in the United States to be prescribed by healthcare providers who are by law authorized to prescribe drugs in accordance with their approval by the FDA. Defendants admit that, during certain periods of time, Bextra® was manufactured and packaged for Searle, which developed, tested, marketed, co-promoted and distributed Bextra® in the United States to be prescribed by healthcare providers who are by law authorized to prescribe drugs in accordance with their approval by the FDA. Defendants state that Plaintiff's allegations regarding

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

"predecessors in interest" are vague and ambiguous. Defendants are without knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of such allegations, and, therefore, deny the same. Defendants deny any wrongful conduct and deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 30. Defendants state that the referenced article speaks for itself and respectfully refer the

Court to the article for its actual language and text. Any attempt to characterize the article is denied. Defendants state that Bextra® was and is safe and effective when used in accordance with its FDA-approved prescribing information. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 31. The allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint are not directed towards Defendants

and, therefore, no response is necessary. Should a response be deemed necessary, Defendants state that the referenced article speaks for itself and respectfully refer the Court to the article for

-10ANSWER TO COMPLAINT ­ 3:07-cv-02631-CRB

Case 3:07-cv-02631-CRB

Document 4

Filed 10/08/2007

Page 11 of 43

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Gordon & Rees, LLP 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111

its actual language and text. Any attempt to characterize the article is denied. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 32. Defendants admit that the New Drug Application for Bextra® was filed with the FDA

on January 15, 2001. Defendants admit that Bextra® was approved by the FDA, on November 16, 2001. Defendants deny any wrongful conduct and the remaining allegations in this

paragraph of the Complaint. 33. Defendants state that Bextra® was and is safe and effective when used in accordance

with its FDA-approved prescribing information. Defendants state that the potential effects of Bextra® were and are adequately described in its FDA-approved prescribing information, which at all times was adequate and comported with applicable standards of care and law. Defendants deny the allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 34. Defendants state that the referenced FDA Talk Paper for Bextra® speaks for itself and

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

respectfully refer the Court to the Talk Paper for its actual language and text. Any attempt to characterize the Talk Paper is denied. paragraph of the Complaint. 35. Defendants state that the referenced article speaks for itself and respectfully refer the Defendants deny the remaining allegations in this

Court to the article for its actual language and text. Any attempt to characterize the article is denied. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 36. Plaintiff fails to provide the proper context for the allegations concerning the "post-drug

approval meta-analysis study" in this paragraph of the Complaint. Defendants are without sufficient information to confirm or deny such allegations and, therefore, deny the same. Defendants state that the referenced study speaks for itself and respectfully refer the Court to the study for its actual language and text. Any attempt to characterize the study is denied. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 37. The allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint are not directed towards Defendants

and, therefore, no response is necessary. Should a response be deemed necessary, Defendants state that the referenced article speaks for itself and respectfully refer the Court to the article for

-11ANSWER TO COMPLAINT ­ 3:07-cv-02631-CRB

Case 3:07-cv-02631-CRB

Document 4

Filed 10/08/2007

Page 12 of 43

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Gordon & Rees, LLP 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111

its actual language and text. Any attempt to characterize the article is denied. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 38. The allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint are not directed towards Defendants

and, therefore, no response is necessary. Should a response be deemed necessary, Defendants admit that a Joint Meeting of the Arthritis Advisory Committee and the Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory Committee was held on February 16-18, 2005. Defendants state that the referenced testimony speaks for itself and respectfully refer the Court to the testimony for its actual language and text. Any attempt to characterize the testimony is denied. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 39. Defendants state that Bextra® was and is safe and effective when used in accordance

with its FDA-approved prescribing information. Defendants deny any wrongful conduct and deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 40. Defendants state that the referenced Alert for Healthcare Professionals speaks for itself

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

and respectfully refer the Court to the Alert for Healthcare Professionals for its actual language and text. Any attempt to characterize the Alert for Healthcare Professionals is denied.

Defendants deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 41. Defendants state that the referenced Alert for Healthcare Professionals speaks for itself

and respectfully refer the Court to the Alert for Healthcare Professionals for its actual language and text. Any attempt to characterize the Alert for Healthcare Professionals is denied.

Defendants deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 42. Defendants state that Bextra® was and is safe and effective when used in accordance Defendants deny the allegations in this

with its FDA-approved prescribing information. paragraph of the Complaint. 43.

Defendants state that the referenced article speaks for itself and respectfully refer the

Court to the article for its actual language and text. Any attempt to characterize the article is denied. Defendants deny any wrongful conduct and deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint.

-12ANSWER TO COMPLAINT ­ 3:07-cv-02631-CRB

Case 3:07-cv-02631-CRB

Document 4

Filed 10/08/2007

Page 13 of 43

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Gordon & Rees, LLP 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111

44.

The allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint are not directed towards Defendants

and, therefore, no response is necessary. Should a response be deemed necessary, Defendants state that the referenced article speaks for itself and respectfully refer the Court to the article for its actual language and text. Any attempt to characterize the article is denied. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 45. Defendants state that Bextra® was and is safe and effective when used in accordance

with its FDA-approved prescribing information. Defendants state that the potential effects of Bextra® were and are adequately described in its FDA-approved prescribing information, which was at all times adequate and comported with applicable standards of care and law. Defendants deny the allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 46. Defendants state that Bextra® was and is safe and effective when used in accordance

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

with its FDA-approved prescribing information. Defendants state that the potential effects of Bextra® were and are adequately described in its FDA-approved prescribing information, which was at all times adequate and comported with applicable standards of care and law. Defendants deny any wrongful conduct, deny that Bextra® is defective, and deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 47. Defendants state that Bextra® was and is safe and effective when used in accordance

with its FDA-approved prescribing information. Defendants state that the potential effects of Bextra® were and are adequately described in its FDA-approved prescribing information, which was at all times adequate and comported with applicable standards of care and law. Defendants deny any wrongful conduct and deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 48. 49. Defendants deny the allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. Defendants admit that, during certain periods of time, Pfizer and Pharmacia marketed

and co-promoted Bextra® in the United States to be prescribed by healthcare providers who are by law authorized to prescribe drugs in accordance with their approval by the FDA. Defendants admit that, during certain periods of time, Bextra® was manufactured and packaged for Searle,

-13ANSWER TO COMPLAINT ­ 3:07-cv-02631-CRB

Case 3:07-cv-02631-CRB

Document 4

Filed 10/08/2007

Page 14 of 43

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Gordon & Rees, LLP 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111

which developed, tested, marketed, co-promoted and distributed Bextra® in the United States to be prescribed by healthcare providers who are by law authorized to prescribe drugs in accordance with their approval by the FDA. Defendants state that Bextra® was and is safe and effective when used in accordance with its FDA-approved prescribing information. Defendants state that the potential effects of Bextra® were and are adequately described in its FDAapproved prescribing information, which was at all times adequate and comported with applicable standards of care and law. Defendants are without knowledge or information

sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations regarding whether Plaintiff used Bextra® and, therefore, deny the same. Defendants deny any wrongful conduct and deny the allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 50. Defendants admit that, during certain periods of time, Pfizer and Pharmacia marketed

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

and co-promoted Bextra® in the United States to be prescribed by healthcare providers who are by law authorized to prescribe drugs in accordance with their approval by the FDA. Defendants admit that, during certain periods of time, Bextra® was manufactured and packaged for Searle, which developed, tested, marketed, co-promoted and distributed Bextra® in the United States to be prescribed by healthcare providers who are by law authorized to prescribe drugs in accordance with their approval by the FDA. Defendants state that Bextra® was and is safe and effective when used in accordance with its FDA-approved prescribing information. Defendants state that the potential effects of Bextra® were and are adequately described in its FDAapproved prescribing information, which was at all times adequate and comported with applicable standards of care and law. paragraph of the Complaint. 51. Defendants admit that, during certain periods of time, Pfizer and Pharmacia marketed Defendants deny the remaining allegations in this

and co-promoted Bextra® in the United States to be prescribed by healthcare providers who are by law authorized to prescribe drugs in accordance with their approval by the FDA. Defendants admit that, during certain periods of time, Bextra® was manufactured and packaged for Searle, which developed, tested, marketed, co-promoted and distributed Bextra® in the United States to

-14ANSWER TO COMPLAINT ­ 3:07-cv-02631-CRB

Case 3:07-cv-02631-CRB

Document 4

Filed 10/08/2007

Page 15 of 43

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Gordon & Rees, LLP 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111

be prescribed by healthcare providers who are by law authorized to prescribe drugs in accordance with their approval by the FDA. Defendants state that Bextra® was and is safe and effective when used in accordance with its FDA-approved prescribing information. Defendants state that the potential effects of Bextra® were and are adequately described in its FDAapproved prescribing information, which was at all times adequate and comported with applicable standards of care and law. Defendants admit, as indicated in the package insert approved by the FDA, that Bextra® is indicated for use in the relief of the signs and symptoms of osteoarthritis and adult rheumatoid arthritis, as well as for the treatment of primary dysmenorrhea. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 52. Defendants state that Bextra® was and is safe and effective when used in accordance

with its FDA-approved prescribing information. Defendants state that the potential effects of Bextra® were and are adequately described in its FDA-approved prescribing information, which at all times was adequate and comported with applicable standards of care and law. Defendants state that Plaintiff's allegations regarding "predecessors in interest" are vague and ambiguous. Defendants are without knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of such allegations, and, therefore, deny the same. Defendants deny any wrongful conduct, deny that Bextra® is defective, and deny the allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 53. Defendants admit that, during certain periods of time, Pfizer and Pharmacia marketed

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

and co-promoted Bextra® in the United States to be prescribed by healthcare providers who are by law authorized to prescribe drugs in accordance with their approval by the FDA. Defendants admit that, during certain periods of time, Bextra® was manufactured and packaged for Searle, which developed, tested, marketed, co-promoted and distributed Bextra® in the United States to be prescribed by healthcare providers who are by law authorized to prescribe drugs in accordance with their approval by the FDA. Defendants state that Bextra® was and is safe and effective when used in accordance with its FDA-approved prescribing information. Defendants state that the potential effects of Bextra® were and are adequately described in its FDAapproved prescribing information, which was at all times adequate and comported with

-15ANSWER TO COMPLAINT ­ 3:07-cv-02631-CRB

Case 3:07-cv-02631-CRB

Document 4

Filed 10/08/2007

Page 16 of 43

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Gordon & Rees, LLP 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111

applicable standards of care and law. paragraph of the Complaint. 54.

Defendants deny the remaining allegations in this

Defendants state that Bextra® was and is safe and effective when used in accordance

with its FDA-approved prescribing information. Defendants state that the potential effects of Bextra® were and are adequately described in its FDA-approved prescribing information, which at all times was adequate and comported with applicable standards of care and law. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 55. Defendants state that Bextra® was and is safe and effective when used in accordance

with its FDA-approved prescribing information. Defendants state that the potential effects of Bextra® were and are adequately described in its FDA-approved prescribing information, which was at all times adequate and comported with applicable standards of care and law. Defendants deny any wrongful conduct and deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 56. Defendants state that Bextra® was and is safe and effective when used in accordance

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

with its FDA-approved prescribing information. Defendants state that the potential effects of Bextra® were and are adequately described in its FDA-approved prescribing information, which was at all times adequate and comported with applicable standards of care and law. Defendants deny any wrongful conduct and deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 57. 58. Defendants deny the allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. Defendants admit that the sale of Bextra® was voluntarily suspended in the U.S. market

as of April 7, 2005. Defendants deny any wrongful conduct and deny the remaining allegations contained in this paragraph of the Complaint. 59. Defendants state that Bextra® was and is safe and effective when used in accordance

with its FDA-approved prescribing information. Defendants state that the potential effects of Bextra® were and are adequately described in its FDA-approved prescribing information, which was at all times adequate and comported with applicable standards of care and law.

-16ANSWER TO COMPLAINT ­ 3:07-cv-02631-CRB

Case 3:07-cv-02631-CRB

Document 4

Filed 10/08/2007

Page 17 of 43

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Gordon & Rees, LLP 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111

Defendants deny any wrongful conduct, deny that Bextra® is defective, and deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 60. Defendants state that Bextra® was and is safe and effective when used in accordance

with its FDA-approved prescribing information. Defendants state that the potential effects of Bextra® were and are adequately described in its FDA-approved prescribing information, which was at all times adequate and comported with applicable standards of care and law. Defendants deny any wrongful conduct and deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 61. Defendants deny any wrongful conduct and deny the remaining allegations in this

paragraph of the Complaint. 62. Defendants state that Bextra® was and is safe and effective when used in accordance

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

with its FDA-approved prescribing information. Defendants state that the potential effects of Bextra® were and are adequately described in its FDA-approved prescribing information, which was at all times adequate and comported with applicable standards of care and law. Defendants admit that, during certain periods of time, Pfizer and Pharmacia marketed and copromoted Bextra® in the United States to be prescribed by healthcare providers who are by law authorized to prescribe drugs in accordance with their approval by the FDA. Defendants admit that, during certain periods of time, Bextra® was manufactured and packaged for Searle, which developed, tested, marketed, co-promoted and distributed Bextra® in the United States to be prescribed by healthcare providers who are by law authorized to prescribe drugs in accordance with their approval by the FDA. Defendants deny any wrongful conduct and deny the

remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 63. Defendants admit that, during certain periods of time, Pfizer and Pharmacia marketed

and co-promoted Bextra® in the United States to be prescribed by healthcare providers who are by law authorized to prescribe drugs in accordance with their approval by the FDA. Defendants admit that, during certain periods of time, Bextra® was manufactured and packaged for Searle, which developed, tested, marketed, co-promoted and distributed Bextra® in the United States to

-17ANSWER TO COMPLAINT ­ 3:07-cv-02631-CRB

Case 3:07-cv-02631-CRB

Document 4

Filed 10/08/2007

Page 18 of 43

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Gordon & Rees, LLP 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111

be prescribed by healthcare providers who are by law authorized to prescribe drugs in accordance with their approval by the FDA. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 64. Defendants admit that, during certain periods of time, Pfizer and Pharmacia marketed

and co-promoted Bextra® in the United States to be prescribed by healthcare providers who are by law authorized to prescribe drugs in accordance with their approval by the FDA. Defendants admit that, during certain periods of time, Bextra® was manufactured and packaged for Searle, which developed, tested, marketed, co-promoted and distributed Bextra® in the United States to be prescribed by healthcare providers who are by law authorized to prescribe drugs in accordance with their approval by the FDA. Defendants admit, as indicated in the package insert approved by the FDA, that Bextra® is indicated for use in the relief of the signs and symptoms of osteoarthritis and adult rheumatoid arthritis, as well as for the treatment of primary dysmenorrhea. Defendants deny any wrongful conduct and deny the remaining

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 65. Defendants state that Bextra® was and is safe and effective when used in accordance

with its FDA-approved prescribing information. Defendants state that the potential effects of Bextra® were and are adequately described in its FDA-approved prescribing information, which was at all times adequate and comported with applicable standards of care and law. Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations regarding and whether Plaintiff used Bextra® and, therefore, deny the same. Defendants deny any wrongful conduct, deny that Bextra® is defective, deny that Bextra® caused Plaintiff injury or damage, and deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 66. Defendants state that Bextra® was and is safe and effective when used in accordance

with its FDA-approved prescribing information. Defendants state that the potential effects of Bextra® were and are adequately described in its FDA-approved prescribing information, which was at all times adequate and comported with applicable standards of care and law.

-18ANSWER TO COMPLAINT ­ 3:07-cv-02631-CRB

Case 3:07-cv-02631-CRB

Document 4

Filed 10/08/2007

Page 19 of 43

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Gordon & Rees, LLP 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111

Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations regarding and whether Plaintiff used Bextra® and, therefore, deny the same. Defendants state that Plaintiff's allegations regarding "predecessors in interest" are vague and ambiguous. Defendants are without knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of such allegations, and, therefore, deny the same. Defendants deny any wrongful conduct, deny that Bextra® is defective, deny that Bextra® caused Plaintiff injury or damage, and deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. Response to First Cause of Action: Negligence 67. Defendants incorporate by reference their responses to each paragraph of Plaintiff's

Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 68. Defendants state that this paragraph of the Complaint contains legal contentions to To the extent a response is deemed required,

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

which no response is deemed required.

Defendants admit that they had duties as are imposed by law but deny having breached such duties. Defendants state that the potential effects of Bextra® were and are adequately described in its FDA-approved prescribing information, which was at all times adequate and comported with applicable standards of care and law. Defendants state that Bextra® was and is safe and effective when used in accordance with its FDA-approved prescribing information. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 69. Defendants state that this paragraph of the Complaint contains legal contentions to To the extent a response is deemed required,

which no response is deemed required.

Defendants admit that they had duties as are imposed by law but deny having breached such duties. Defendants state that Bextra® was and is safe and effective when used in accordance with its FDA-approved prescribing information. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 70. Defendants state that this paragraph of the Complaint contains legal contentions to

which no response is required. To the extent that a response is deemed required, Defendants admit that they had duties as are imposed by law but deny having breached such duties.

-19ANSWER TO COMPLAINT ­ 3:07-cv-02631-CRB

Case 3:07-cv-02631-CRB

Document 4

Filed 10/08/2007

Page 20 of 43

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Gordon & Rees, LLP 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111

Defendants state that Bextra® was and is safe and effective when used in accordance with its FDA-approved prescribing information. Defendants state that the potential effects of Bextra® were and are adequately described in its FDA-approved prescribing information, which was at all times adequate and comported with applicable standards of care and law. Defendants deny any wrongful conduct and deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint, including all subparts. 71. Defendants state that Bextra® was and is safe and effective when used in accordance

with its FDA-approved prescribing information. Defendants state that the potential effects of Bextra® were and are adequately described in its FDA-approved prescribing information, which was at all times adequate and comported with applicable standards of care and law. Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations regarding whether Plaintiff used Bextra® and, therefore, deny the same. Defendants deny any wrongful conduct and deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 72. Defendants state that Bextra® was and is safe and effective when used in accordance

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

with its FDA-approved prescribing information. Defendants state that the potential effects of Bextra® were and are adequately described in its FDA-approved prescribing information, which was at all times adequate and comported with applicable standards of care and law. Defendants deny any wrongful conduct and deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 73. Defendants state that Bextra® was and is safe and effective when used in accordance

with its FDA-approved prescribing information. Defendants deny any wrongful conduct, deny that Bextra® caused Plaintiff injury or damage, and deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 74. Defendants deny any wrongful conduct, deny that Bextra® caused Plaintiff injury or

damage, and deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 75. Defendants deny any wrongful conduct, deny that Bextra® caused Plaintiff injury or

-20ANSWER TO COMPLAINT ­ 3:07-cv-02631-CRB

Case 3:07-cv-02631-CRB

Document 4

Filed 10/08/2007

Page 21 of 43

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Gordon & Rees, LLP 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111

damage and deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 76. Defendants deny any wrongful conduct, deny that Bextra® caused Plaintiff injury or

damage, and deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. Response to Second Cause of Action: Strict Liability 77. Defendants incorporate by reference their responses to each paragraph of Plaintiff's

Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 78. Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations regarding whether Plaintiff used Bextra® and, therefore, deny the same. Defendants admit that Bextra® was expected to reach consumers without substantial change in the condition from the time of sale. paragraph of the Complaint. 79. Defendants state that Bextra® was and is safe and effective when used in accordance Defendants deny the remaining allegations in this

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

with its FDA-approved prescribing information. Defendants state that the potential effects of Bextra® were and are adequately described in its FDA-approved prescribing information, which was at all times adequate and comported with applicable standards of care and law. Defendants deny the allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 80. Defendants state that Bextra® was and is safe and effective when used in accordance

with its FDA-approved prescribing information. Defendants state that the potential effects of Bextra® were and are adequately described in its FDA-approved prescribing information, which was at all times adequate and comported with applicable standards of care and law. Defendants deny that Bextra® is defective or unreasonably dangerous, and deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 81. Defendants state that this paragraph of the Complaint contains legal contentions to To the extent a response is deemed required,

which no response is deemed required.

Defendants state that Bextra® was and is safe and effective when used in accordance with its FDA-approved prescribing information. Defendants state that the potential effects of Bextra® were and are adequately described in its FDA-approved prescribing information, which was at

-21ANSWER TO COMPLAINT ­ 3:07-cv-02631-CRB

Case 3:07-cv-02631-CRB

Document 4

Filed 10/08/2007

Page 22 of 43

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Gordon & Rees, LLP 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111

all times adequate and comported with applicable standards of care and law. Defendants deny that Bextra® is unreasonably dangerous, and deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint, including all subparts. 82. Defendants state that Bextra® was and is safe and effective when used in accordance

with its FDA-approved prescribing information. Defendants state that the potential effects of Bextra® were and are adequately described in its FDA-approved prescribing information, which was at all times adequate and comported with applicable standards of care and law. Defendants deny any wrongful conduct, deny that Bextra® is defective, deny that Bextra® caused Plaintiff injury or damage, and deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 83. Defendants state that Bextra® was and is safe and effective when used in accordance

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

with its FDA-approved prescribing information. Defendants state that the potential effects of Bextra® were and are adequately described in its FDA-approved prescribing information, which was at all times adequate and comported with applicable standards of care and law. Defendants deny any wrongful conduct, deny that Bextra® is defective, and deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 84. Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations regarding whether Plaintiff used Bextra® and, therefore, deny the same. Defendants state that Bextra® was and is safe and effective when used in accordance with its FDA-approved prescribing information. Defendants state that the potential effects of Bextra® were and are adequately described in its FDA-approved prescribing information, which was at all times adequate and comported with applicable standards of care and law. Defendants admit that, during certain periods of time, Pfizer and Pharmacia marketed and co-promoted Bextra® in the United States to be prescribed by healthcare providers who are by law authorized to prescribe drugs in accordance with their approval by the FDA. Defendants admit that, during certain periods of time, Bextra® was manufactured and packaged for Searle, which developed, tested, marketed, co-promoted and distributed Bextra® in the United States to be prescribed by

-22ANSWER TO COMPLAINT ­ 3:07-cv-02631-CRB

Case 3:07-cv-02631-CRB

Document 4

Filed 10/08/2007

Page 23 of 43

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Gordon & Rees, LLP 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111

healthcare providers who are by law authorized to prescribe drugs in accordance with their approval by the FDA. Defendants deny any wrongful conduct, deny that Bextra® is defective, deny that Bextra® caused Plaintiff injury or damage, and deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 85. Defendants state that Bextra® was and is safe and effective when used in accordance

with its FDA-approved prescribing information. Defendants state that the potential effects of Bextra® were and are adequately described in its FDA-approved prescribing information, which was at all times adequate and comported with applicable standards of care and law. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 86. Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations regarding whether Plaintiff used Bextra® and, therefore, deny the same. Defendants state that Bextra® was and is safe and effective when used in accordance with its FDA-approved prescribing information. Defendants state that the potential effects of Bextra® were and are adequately described in its FDA-approved prescribing information, which was at all times adequate and comported with applicable standards of care and law. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 87. Defendants state that Bextra® was and is safe and effective when used in accordance

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

with its FDA-approved prescribing information. Defendants deny any wrongful conduct and deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 88. Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations regarding whether Plaintiff used Bextra® and, therefore, deny the same. Defendants state that Bextra® was and is safe and effective when used in accordance with its FDA-approved prescribing information. Defendants state that the potential effects of Bextra® were and are adequately described in its FDA-approved prescribing information, which was at all times adequate and comported with applicable standards of care and law. Defendants deny that Bextra® is defective and deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 89. Defendants deny any wrongful conduct, deny that Bextra® caused Plaintiff injury or

-23ANSWER TO COMPLAINT ­ 3:07-cv-02631-CRB

Case 3:07-cv-02631-CRB

Document 4

Filed 10/08/2007

Page 24 of 43

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Gordon & Rees, LLP 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111

damage, and deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 90. Defendants deny any wrongful conduct, deny that Bextra® caused Plaintiff injury or

damage, and deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 91. Defendants deny any wrongful conduct, deny that Bextra® caused Plaintiff injury or

damage, and deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. Response to Third Cause of Action: Breach of Express Warranty 92. Defendants incorporate by reference their responses to each paragraph of Plaintiff's

Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 93. Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations regarding whether Plaintiff used Bextra® and, therefore, deny the same. Defendants state that Bextra® was and is safe and effective when used in accordance with its FDA-approved prescribing information. Defendants state that the potential effects of Bextra® were and are adequately described in its FDA-approved prescribing information, which was at all times adequate and comported with applicable standards of care and law. Defendants admit that they provided FDA-approved prescribing information regarding Bextra®. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 94. Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

truth of the allegations regarding whether Plaintiff used Bextra® and, therefore, deny the same. Defendants state that Bextra® was and is safe and effective when used in accordance with its FDA-approved prescribing information. Defendants state that the potential effects of Bextra® were and are adequately described in its FDA-approved prescribing information, which was at all times adequate and comported with applicable standards of care and law. Defendants admit that they provided FDA-approved prescribing information regarding Bextra®. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint, including all subparts. 95. 96. Defendants deny the allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. Defendants state that Bextra® was and is safe and effective when used in accordance

with its FDA-approved prescribing information. Defendants state that the potential effects of

-24ANSWER TO COMPLAINT ­ 3:07-cv-02631-CRB

Case 3:07-cv-02631-CRB

Document 4

Filed 10/08/2007

Page 25 of 43

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Gordon & Rees, LLP 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111

Bextra® were and are adequately described in its FDA-approved prescribing information, which was at all times adequate and comported with applicable standards of care and law. Defendants admit that they provided FDA-approved prescribing information regarding Bextra®. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 97. Defendants state that Bextra® was and is safe and effective when used in accordance

with its FDA-approved prescribing information. Defendants state that the potential effects of Bextra® were and are adequately described in its FDA-approved prescribing information, which was at all times adequate and comported with applicable standards of care and law. Defendants admit that they provided FDA-approved prescribing information regarding Bextra®. Defendants deny any wrongful conduct the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 98. Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

truth of the allegations regarding whether Plaintiff used Bextra® and, therefore, deny the same. Defendants admit that they provided FDA-approved prescribing information regarding Bextra®. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 99. Defendants deny any wrongful conduct, deny that Bextra® caused Plaintiff injury or

damage, and deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 100. Defendants deny any wrongful conduct, deny that Bextra® caused Plaintiff injury or

damage, and deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 101. Defendants deny any wrongful conduct, deny that Bextra® caused Plaintiff injury or

damage, and deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. Response to Fourth Cause of Action: Breach of Implied Warranty 102. Defendants incorporate by reference their responses to each paragraph of Plaintiff's

Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 103. Defendants admit that, during certain periods of time, Pfizer and Pharmacia marketed

and co-promoted Bextra® in the United States to be prescribed by healthcare providers who are by law authorized to prescribe drugs in accordance with their approval by the FDA. Defendants

-25ANSWER TO COMPLAINT ­ 3:07-cv-02631-CRB

Case 3:07-cv-02631-CRB

Document 4

Filed 10/08/2007

Page 26 of 43

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Gordon & Rees, LLP 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111

admit that, during certain periods of time, Bextra® was manufactured and packaged for Searle, which developed, tested, marketed, co-promoted and distributed Bextra® in the United States to be prescribed by healthcare providers who are by law authorized to prescribe drugs in accordance with their approval by the FDA. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 104. Defendants admit that they provided FDA-approved prescribing information regarding

Bextra®. Defendants admit, as indicated in the package insert approved by the FDA, that Bextra® is indicated for use in the relief of the signs and symptoms of osteoarthritis and adult rheumatoid arthritis, as well as for the treatment of primary dysmenorrhea. Defendants state that Bextra® was and is safe and effective when used in accordance with its FDA-approved prescribing information. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 105. Defendants state that Bextra® was and is safe and effective when used in accordance

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

with its FDA-approved prescribing information. Defendants state that the potential effects of Bextra® were and are adequately described in its FDA-approved prescribing information, which was at all times adequate and comported with applicable standards of care and law. Defendants deny any wrongful conduct and deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 106. Defendants state that Bextra® was and is safe and effective when used in accordance

with its FDA-approved prescribing information. Defendants state that the potential effects of Bextra® were and are adequately described in its FDA-approved prescribing information, which was at all times adequate and comported with applicable standards of care and law. Defendants deny any wrongful conduct and deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. 107. Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations regarding whether Plaintiff used Bextra® and, therefore, deny the same. Defendants admit, as indicated in the package insert approved by the FDA, that Bextra® is

-26ANSWER TO COMPLAINT ­ 3:07-cv-02631-CRB

Case 3:07-cv-02631-CRB

Document 4

Filed 10/08/2007

Page 27 of 43

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Gordon & Rees, LLP 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111

indicated for use in the relief of the signs and symptoms of osteoarthritis and adult rheumatoid arthritis, as well as for the treatment of primary dysmenorrhea. Defendants deny the remai