On April 18, 2012, Judge Danny Reeves, who is overseeing all federal Darvocet cases centralized in Kentucky, dismissed defendants, Endo Pharmaceuticals Holdings, Inc. and Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Endo Defendants”), from the litigation because the Court lacks specific or general jurisdiction over them.

On approximately December 1, 2010, just eleven days after the propoxyphene products were pulled from the U.S. market, the Endo Defendants acquired Generics International (US Parent), Inc., which was the owner of various companies that had previously manufactured or distributed propoxyphene. In many of the Complaints, plaintiffs allege that the Endo Defendants may have assumed responsibility for the omissions, acts and liabilities of the acquired companies. In response, the Endo Defendants filed motions to dismiss.

Previously, Judge Reeves dismissed all of the plaintiffs’ claims with respect to the manufacturers of generic propoxyphene, concluding that they are preempted by the controversial Supreme Court holding in PLIVA, Inc. v. Mensing, 131 S. Ct. 2567 (2011). However, in response to the Endo Defendants recently filed motions to dismiss, Judge Reeves also concluded that the Court lacks specific jurisdiction over these defendants because many of the plaintiffs failed to allege specific facts sufficient to establish specific jurisdiction. In addition, Judge Reeves opined that because the original entities still existed, and, in fact, were sued in this litigation, the Endo Defendants could not also be held liable under the theory of successor liability. Finally, Judge Reeves held that the Endo Defendants did not have the necessary contact with the plaintiffs’ states to establish general jurisdiction.

If you feel you have experienced any side-effects from taking Darvocet or Darvon, you can contact Stark & Stark and speak to one of the Mass Tort/Pharmaceutical Litigation attorneys, free of charge, who can help assess any claims that you might have against the Darvocet or Darvon manufacturers.