Adderall Class Action Dismissed Due to Missed Deadline

Top Class Actions’s website and social media posts use affiliate links. If you make a purchase using such links, we may receive a commission, but it will not result in any additional charges to you. Please review our Affiliate Link Disclosure for more information.

Adderall Class Action Dismissed Due to Missed Deadline

By Anne Bucher

A California federal judge dismissed a putative class action lawsuit accusing Shire LLC of suppressing its competition for the drug Adderall XR by engaging in supply agreements with makers of generic drugs.

In her decision to dismiss the Adderall XR class action lawsuit, U.S. District Judge Mariana R. Pfaelzer criticized the plaintiff’s attorneys for missing the deadline to amend the complaint after Shire moved to dismiss the original complaint in May. While Judge Pfaelzer informed the plaintiffs’ counsel that they could file a motion for leave to amend the complaint, she cautioned that she would not tolerate any more procedural errors.

Under the federal rules of procedure, a party has 21 days to amend a pleading after being served with a motion to dismiss. The plaintiffs’ counsel filed an amended complaint on July 26, well after the deadline had passed.

“The next mistake you make is going to be fatal,” Judge Pfaelzer warned the plaintiffs’ attorneys.

In its motion to dismiss the Adderall class action lawsuit, Shire claimed that plaintiff Erin Shaffer had no standing to challenge allegedly anti-competitive settlements that the company entered to resolve patent infringement lawsuits against companies seeking to create a generic version of Adderall.

Shaffer initially filed the class action lawsuit on April 2, alleging that Shire’s settlements with Impax Laboratories Inc. and Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. allowed Shire to maintain “complete control over the supply” of Adderall, allowing them to artificially raise the price of the attention deficit hyperactivity disorder drug. Similar complaints have been filed against Shire in Florida and Pennsylvania.

At a hearing on August 16, Gillian Wade, one of Shaffer’s class action lawsuit attorneys, argued, “We’re not talking about one type of anti-competitive conduct. We’re talking about an entire scheme … devised to monopolize the market and obtain more exclusivity than they otherwise would have had even under their patent.” She accused Shire of filing “sham” patent lawsuits against makers of generic drugs in 2003 to prevent other companies from releasing their own versions of Adderall until 2006. 

Shire has been plagued by a number of class action lawsuits that accuse the company of engaging in anti-competitive practices with regard to Adderall. Shire has been accused of reaching patent settlements to resolve the “sham” patent lawsuits, allowing some companies to release an “authorized generic” version of Adderall in 2009 in exchange for a royalty payment. According to the class action lawsuits, Shire backed out on the deal by not providing companies with sufficient product to meet the demand, forcing customers to buy Adderall at the inflated prices.

Shire has insisted that the class action lawsuit allegations are untrue and that the company has not engaged in illegal behavior.

Shaffer is represented by Gillian L. Wade, Sara D. Avila and M. Isaac Miller of Milstein Adelman LLP and Allan Kanner, Conlee Whiteley and Cynthia St. Amant of Kanner & Whiteley LLC.

The Adderall XR Antitrust Class Action Lawsuit is Shaffer v. Shire LLC, et al., Case No. 2:13-cv-02363, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

All class action and lawsuit news updates are listed in the Lawsuit News section of Top Class Actions