Krueger v. Wyeth, Inc.
District Court, S.D. California
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER ON SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFS
JOHN A. HOUSTON, District Judge.
INTRODUCTION
Before the Court are the parties’ supplemental briefs on modification of the class definition. After a careful consideration of the briefs and relevant exhibits submitted by the parties, the Court sets forth its decision below.
BACKGROUND
1. Factual Background
Defendants manufacture the hormone replacement therapy (“HRT”) drugs Premarin, Prempro, and Premphase. See Doc. # 61-6 at 2. Premarin, an estrogen, is a prescription drug first approved by the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) in 1942 and used to prevent…
2Cases cited32 opinions
- Amchem Products, Inc. v. WindsorSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. DukesSupreme Court of the United States · 2011
- General Telephone Co. of Southwest v. FalconSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Comcast Corp. v. BehrendSupreme Court of the United States · 2013
- Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1998
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- In re Morning Song Bird Food LitigationDistrict Court, S.D. California · 2017
- Ashworth v. International Paper CoDistrict Court, W.D. Louisiana · 2024
- Howell v. Advantage RN LLCDistrict Court, S.D. California · 2019
- UnifySCC v. CodyDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2025