Legal Opinion
Brodin v. Merck & Co.
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided March 15, 2010No. 1:07-cv-03466-JFK; No. 1:08-cv-00896-JFK; No. 1:08-cv-09728-JFK; No. 1:07-cv-11334-JFK; No. 1:06-MD-1789-JFKPublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER
JOHN F. KEENAN, District Judge:
Plaintiffs are Virginia residents who brought suit against Defendant Merck Sharp & Dohme Corporation (“Merck”) for alleged jaw injuries caused by Merck’s prescription osteoporosis drug Fosamax. Merck moves for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure claiming that Plaintiffs’ *256claims are time-barred by Virginia’s two-year statute of limitations. For the reasons that follow, Merck’s motion is granted.
I. BACKGROUND
The relevant facts are not disputed. Plaintiffs are citizens and residents of Virginia who…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1941
- American Pipe & Construction Co. v. UtahSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Crown, Cork & Seal Co. v. ParkerSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Clemens v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2008
- Wade v. Danek Medical, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1999
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- In Re Fosamax Products Liability LitigationDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2010