A pharmaceutical maker argues a lawsuit filed against it over stomach acid reducers belongs in federal court, not a Louisiana state court.
Defendant Takeda Pharmaceuticals America Inc. filed its notice of removal January 9 to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.
The original complaint was filed in the 24th Judicial District Court for the Parish of Jefferson, in Louisiana, in September.
Plaintiff Darren Dowell, a Jefferson Parish resident, alleges he developed esophageal and stomach cancers, and required surgeries that removed portions of his esophagus and stomach and reconnection of his digestive tract.
Dowell contends his cancer was caused by various proton pump inhibitors, or PPIs, including Prilosec, Nexium, Prevacid, and Protonix. He alleges he took the PPIs from 2006 through 2024.
PPIs are a class of medications that significantly reduce stomach acid production by blocking the enzyme system, or proton pump, in the stomach lining. Such medications are used to treat acid reflux, stomach ulcers, and erosive esophagitis.
“The PPis manufactured by Defendants were defective, unreasonable [sic] dangerous, and unreasonably dangerous per se, to Petitioner, who was an intended and foreseeable bystander who used these products,” Dowell’s complaint states.
Takeda was served with a copy of the action Dec. 12.
The company argues in its seven-page removal notice that there is complete diversity among the parties.
According to the notice, Dowell is a citizen of Louisiana; Takeda is a citizen of Delaware and Massachusetts; Pfizer is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in New York; Wyeth is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business in Pennsylvania; Perrigo Company is located in Michigan; and unserved defendant Astrazeneca PLC is a foreign entity.
Also, Takeda argues the amount in controversy requirement is satisfied.
In federal court, the “amount in controversy” refers to the monetary value of a plaintiff’s claim. This must exceed $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, for diversity jurisdiction.
While Takeda notes that Dowell does not allege a specific amount in controversy in his complaint, the pharmaceutical maker contends it is “facially evident” that the requirement is satisfied.
“Plaintiff seeks damages for past, present, and future medical expenses; past, present, and future mental anguish, pain, and suffering; past, present, and future physical pain and suffering; loss of quality of life; and past, present, and future disability,” the notice states.
“Where, as here, a plaintiff alleges a serious injury, including cancer, the Fifth Circuit has found that the amount-in-controversy requirement is satisfied.”
It added, “The amount-in-controversy is further supported by Plaintiff’s claim for ‘past, present and future disability.
Takeda is represented by New Orleans firm Irwin Fritchie Urquhart Moore & Daniels LLC. Dean Church Law LLC in Boutte, Louisiana, is representing Dowell.
The lawsuit appears separate from other litigation filed against manufacturers of PPIs, in particular AstraZeneca. Those cases, which allege the drugs cause chronic kidney disease and kidney failure, are part of a large Multi-District Litigation, or MDL, in New Jersey.
