Johnson v. GlaxoSmithKline, Inc.

Good Law
166 Cal. App. 4th 1497·2008 Cal. App. LEXIS 1446·83 Cal. Rptr. 3d 607·8 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 12
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 19, 2008B199453California8,584 words

Opinion

Opinion

Perluss, J.

In two published decisions the United States District Court for the Central District of California denied class certification in putative class actions brought by current and former users of the prescription drug Paxil against GlaxoSmithKline, Inc. (GSK), the drug’s manufacturer, which alleged GSK had deceptively advertised Paxil as non-habit-forming. Relying upon those decisions and Alvarez v. May Dept. Stores Co. (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 1223 [ 49 Cal.Rptr.3d 892 ] (Alvarez), which applied established principles of collateral estoppel to class certification issues, the trial court granted GSK’s motion for summary adjudication precluding this case from proceeding as a class action, ruling Kevin Johnson’s superior court lawsuit against GSK sought to certify the identical putative class, pursuing the same legal claims, as had been disallowed in the federal actions. Because the class issues actually litigated in the federal court Paxil cases differ from those presented by Johnson’s putative class action, we reverse.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

1. Johnson’s First Amended Complaint

Paxil, a drug manufactured and distributed by GSK, is prescribed for conditions…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.