A San Fransisco judge states he’ll likely deny Bristol-Myers Squibb and AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP’s motion to dismiss numerous non-California Onglyza lawsuits.

The pharmaceutical companies had tried to end two product liability Onglyza lawsuits, claiming the majority of the plaintiffs do not live in California.

While judge dismissed this motion, he did say he would probably dismiss out of state litigants.

Superior Court Judge Curtis E. A. Karnow had cited the California Supreme Court’s recent decision in a similar case, which found that 600 non California claimants suing injuries over blood thinner Plavix could continue seeking legal action.

The ruling stated since the majority of the company’s marketing and researcher development facilities were in California, non California claimants had fallen into the personal jurisdiction of the state courts.

Overview of Onglyza Lawsuits

Bristol-Myers Squibb attorneys have requested Judge Karnow hold off on his decision for a few months, to see if the U.S. Supreme Court could review the case. The attorney explained that the higher court’s ruling could “reverse and clarify” the state’s decision.

In addition, the Bristol Myers attorney added that the Supreme Court’s ruling would also apply to several more Onglyza lawsuits recently filed under Judge Karnow. One of these cases consisted of as many as 21 plaintiffs, with only “one or two California residents.”

However Judge Karnow stated the Onglyza lawsuits had been on pause for long enough, and that they have been waiting for years under the court of appeal and superior court.

Judge Karnow also stated that he had to balance public and private interests, stating that non California plaintiffs were not entitled to the same venue as California plaintiffs. Judge Karnow commented that he wished he could change the rules to remedy the many inconveniences cited by the plaintiffs, which included travel and duplicate depositions.

“I know you’re right, but there is case law that says inconvenience to counsel, especially to plaintiffs’ counsel, is not the first consideration,” Judge Karnow said.

Complaining attorneys involved in the Onglyza lawsuits argued that the companies did not suffer from the same inconveniences the plaintiffs did, and that the companies only cited the California budget crisis in their arguments for dismissal.

Furthermore, the plaintiff attorneys argued it made sense to try all the Onglyza cases together for the sake of “judicial economy.”

The plaintiff attorneys suggested conducting pre-litigation discovery in California, and then determine if there were better venues for the sake of the plaintiffs.

Judge Karnow called the idea “intriguing” but not possible, as it would impose on other judges in different states. However, even with the inconveniences the plaintiffs are facing, their attorneys state they are more than willing to continue battle in California.

These Onglyza lawsuits are Case No. CGC-16-550418, and Case No. CGC-16-552157, in the Superior Court of California for the County of San Francisco.