Januvia, Byetta, Janumet and Victoza Lawsuits Consolidated

Los Angeles, CAThe Judicial Panel on multidistrict litigation has ordered that Januvia, Byetta, Janumet and Victoza lawsuits be consolidated for pre-trial proceedings. The motion to consolidate the lawsuits, which allege patients suffered Victoza side effects and side effects from similar drugs, was made by the plaintiffs, and although the judges noted that it is unusual to consolidate lawsuits involving competing drug companies, they felt allegations about pancreatic cancer were similar enough that the lawsuits could be consolidated.

The lawsuits allege that patients who took one of four incretin-mimetic medications for diabetes - Januvia, Janumet, Victoza or Byetta - developed pancreatic cancer. Fifty-three lawsuits have been filed in seven judicial districts, including the Southern District of California, the District of Arizona, and the District of Colorado, although the panel noted that it had been made aware of 44 additional pending actions in various districts.

In ordering the lawsuits be consolidated in the Southern District of California, the panel noted that “The majority of the pending actions, including the first-filed action, have been filed in or removed to this district.” Furthermore, all respondents - including all plaintiffs and defendants - supported consolidation in that district.

The panel noted that they hesitate to centralize litigation that involves multiple and competing defendants who sold similar products. They determined, however, that the plaintiffs made “highly similar allegations about each of the four drugs that manage blood insulin levels and the propensity of those drugs to cause pancreatic cancer.” They further noted that several plaintiffs took more than one of the drugs involved in the claims, increasing the possibility that discovery in those cases will involve similar documents and witnesses.

Finally, they noted that the defendants all supported centralization of the lawsuits.

The title of the lawsuit has also been changed, from In re: Incretin Mimetics Products Liability Litigation to In re: Incretin-Based Therapies Products Liability Litigation. The case number is MDL 2452, in the Southern District of California.

Although the panel confirmed consolidation of the lawsuits, this is not a judgment on the merits of the lawsuits. Consolidation only means that the lawsuits have similar questions of fact involved, but those questions of fact have not been argued in court.