Scholl v. LEDERLE LABORATORIES DIVISION, 684 F. Supp. 246 (D. Ariz. 1987)
November 10, 1987
v.
LEDERLE LABORATORIES DIVISION, etc., et al., Defendants.
United States District Court, D. Arizona.
ORDER
Janice A. Wezelman, Miller & Pitt, Tucson, Ariz., Andrew W. Dodd, Denver & Dodd, Torrance, Cal., for plaintiffs.
D. B. Udall, Chandler, Tullar, Udall & Redhair, Tucson, Ariz., Odette L. Ashley, Haight, Dickson, Brown & Bonesteel, Santa Monica, Cal., for Lederle Laboratories.
John Reiner, Herzfeld & Rubin, Los Angeles, Cal., Darwin J. Nelson, Kimble, Gothreau, Nelson & Cannon, Tucson, Ariz., for Connaught Laboratories.
BILBY, Chief Judge.
The Court, having read all the cases submitted by counsel, finds the reasoning most persuasive in Patten v. Lederle Laboratories, 655 F. Supp. 745 (D.Utah, 1987).
Neither the statute, congressional intent, or logic mandate a holding that the federal government has preempted state tort law in this area.
IT IS ORDERED that the Defendants' Motions For Partial Summary Judgment are DENIED.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
