This case was last updated from U.S. District Courts on 09/22/2021 at 11:18:16 (UTC).

Brown v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. et al

Case Summary

On June 6, 2021, Devin Ashley Brown (“Plaintiff”), represented by Jason P. Johnston and Levi M. Plesset of Milstein, Jackson, Fairchild & Wade LLP, filed a Personal Injury - Medical/Pharmaceutical Product Liability lawsuit against Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Teva Women’s Health, Inc., Teva Women’s Health, LLC, formerly known as Teva Women’s Health, Inc., Duramed Pharmaceuticals, Inc. doing business as Teva Women’s Health, Inc., (collectively, “Defendants”), for alleged personal injuries suffered as a result of using the defective and dangerous ParaGard IUD. The Plaintiff is seeking damages relating to the Defendants’ design, manufacture, surveillance, sale, marketing, advertising, promotion, labeling, packaging, and distribution of ParaGard Intrauterine medical device (hereinafter “ParaGard IUD”). This case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia with Judge Leigh Martin May presiding. 

In the complaint, the Plaintiff alleges “The ParaGard IUD is an intrauterine drug that can provide long-term birth control, up to 10 years, without hormones. The ParaGard drug is a T-shaped plastic frame made of polyethylene and barium sulfate that is inserted into the uterus. Copper wire coiled around the IUD produces an inflammatory reaction that is toxic to sperm and egg. A monofilament polyethylene thread is tied through the tip, resulting in two white threads, which aid in the detection and removal of the drug. The ParaGard IUD has a propensity to break at the arms upon explant resulting in serious injuries.”

The Plaintiff further alleges that “Teva USA designed, developed, manufactured and marketed the ParaGard IUD at issue. At times relevant to this action, Teva USA communicated with the United States Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) regarding the sale, use, and safety concerns related to ParaGard IUDs, which includes managing product recalls, investigating adverse events from ParaGard IUD users, and performing mandatory reporting to FDA regarding ParaGard IUD. The ParaGard IUD is prescribed to prevent conception, and at all times relevant hereto, were manufactured, designed, tested, packaged, labeled, marketed, advertised, promoted, distributed, and sold by Defendants. On information and belief, Plaintiff used the ParaGard IUD resulting in injuries.”

The Plaintiff even further alleges that “As a direct result of Plaintiff’s use of the ParaGard, Plaintiff suffered from having a broken arm of the ParaGard in her, causing her damage, including but not limited to pain, suffering, mental anguish, the loss of reproductive health, loss of enjoyment of life, medical expenses and other out of pocket losses and loss of income.”

The Plaintiff laid down ten claims for relief. These include alleged negligence, strict liability for an alleged design defect, strict liability for an alleged manufacturing defect, strict liability for alleged failure to warn, alleged common law fraud, alleged negligent misrepresentation, alleged breach of express warranty, alleged breach of implied warranty, alleged violation of consumer protection laws, and alleged gross negligence.

In the prayer for relief, the Plaintiff has requested Plaintiff the Court to order judgment against each Defendant on each count as follows: all available compensatory damages for the described losses with respect to each cause of action; past and future medical expenses, as well as the cost associated with past and future life care; past and future lost wages and loss of earning capacity; past and future emotional distress; and consequential damages. Further, the Plaintiff requests all available noneconomic damages, including without limitation pain, suffering, and loss of enjoyment of life; restitution, and reasonable attorneys' fees where recoverable along with the costs of this action, prejudgment interests, all other interest recoverable; and such other additional and further relief as Plaintiff may be entitled to in law or in equity.

This case summary may not reflect the current position of the parties to this litigation or the status of this case. Sign up to view the latest case updates and court documents.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets


Case Details

  • Case Number:


  • Filing Date:


  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Other Disposed

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Medical/Pharmaceutical Product Liability

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

Leigh Martin May


Party Details


Devin Ashley Brown


Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc

Duramed Pharmaceuticals Inc doing business as Teva Women's Health Inc

Teva Womens Heath, LLC

Teva Women's Health Inc

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

Jason P. Johnston

Attorney at Zimmerman Reed, P.L.L.P. -MN

1100 Ids Center, 80 South 8Th Street

Minneapolis, MN 55402


Court Documents


1 #1

Civil Cover Sheet




6 #1







Docket Entries

  • 09/15/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#10) CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER REGARDING SEPTEMBER 21, 2021 STATUS CONFERENCE AND MOTION HEARING. It is hereby ORDERED that: (1) The monthly status conference will be conducted remotely via Zoom, and shall begin at 9:00 am EDT on September 21, 2021. (2) The hearing on Defendants' 89 Motion to Dismiss shall be conducted in person and remotely via Zoom. The hearing shall begin immediately following the monthly status conference. (3) Only essential attorneys involved in the briefing and arguments for the Motion to Dismiss or with an active role in the September status conference may be present in court on September 21, 2021. All others should attend virtually via Zoom. Zoom link: Meeting ID: 160 626 0573 Passcode: 123456 Dial by your location: +1 669 254 5252 (San Jose) +1 646 828 7666 (New York) +1 551 285 1373 +1 669 216 1590 (San Jose) Signed by Judge Leigh Martin May on 9/15/2021. (Associated Cases: 1:20-md-02974-LMM et al.) (cmd) (Entered: 09/15/2021)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 08/23/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#9) Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Leigh Martin May: Status Conference held on 8/23/2021. The Court held its monthly status conference. The parties are directed to file a proposed scheduling order for the September 21st status conference and motion hearing two weeks prior to the hearing. See transcript for details. Associated Cases: 1:20-md-02974-LMM et al.(Court Reporter Montrell Vann)(tcc) (Entered: 08/23/2021)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 07/21/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#8) Case Management Order Regarding Docket Logistics of Filing of Short Form Complaints, Executed Waivers of Service of Summons of Process, and Notices of Appearance in Individual Cases. Signed by Judge Leigh Martin May on 7/21/2021. Associated Cases: 1:20-md-02974-LMM et al.(rjc) (Entered: 07/21/2021)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/23/2021
  • DocketCivil Case Terminated. (tmf) (Entered: 06/23/2021)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/23/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#7) ORDER INITIAL CONFERENCE: The Court held its Initial Conference in this MDL on February 9, 2021. The below are the orders entered after discussion of these issues at that conference. 1. Leadership structure: After the Court discussed issues concerning the leadership structure with all parties, the Court ORDERED Plaintiffs and Defendants to each file their proposed consent motion and order as to their requested leadership structure and team within 7 days of the date of this order. 2. Future status conferences: The Court will hold status conferences once a month. The next six conferences will take place on the following dates at 10:00 am via zoom: Tuesday, March 9, 2021; Monday, April 12, 2021; Wednesday, May 12, 2021; Monday, June 14, 2021; Tuesday, July 13, 2021; Friday, August 20, 2021. The Court will send out the zoom links prior to the conferences. The parties will submit a proposed consent agenda 3 business days prior to the conference. The parties will also confer as to the format for presenting issues that require additional explanation. When these are necessary, they should also be filed 3 business days before the conference. 3. Stay of responsive pleading obligations: The Court continues the stay of responsive pleading obligations provided for in Section 6(b) of the Court's initial order. 4. Pending motions: The Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE all pending motions in the individual cases comprising the MDL. These cases are also ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSED. These terminated motions will later be refiled in accordance with an upcoming Case Management Order. 5. Docketing: All parties are to docket future filings only in the MDL case. The case caption should indicate whether any filing applies to all cases or list the individual cases to which it should apply. 6. Electronic service: The Court ORDERS all attorneys participating in the MDL proceeding to register with the Court's CM/ECF system. Because all attorneys will then receive electronic copies of documents filed in the MDL, the Court ORDERS that electronic service of documents via the Court's CM/ECF system satisfies the obligation of service. Hereafter, unless otherwise ordered, neither the clerk's office nor counsel for the parties shall be obligated to provide service copies of any filings or related orders by U.S. Mail or any other means to attorneys who have not registered with the Court's CM/ECF system. An attorney who is not participating in the MDL and does not want to receive CM/ECF notifications may file a motion to withdraw or a certificate of consent to withdraw in accordance with Local Rule 83.1(E). 7. Initial disclosures: The Court GRANTS the parties' joint request for the Court to excuse the parties from Rule 26(f) initial disclosures; except as to the ParaGard New Drug Application (NDA) that was transferred on or about November 10, 2005, to Duramed Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and produced by TWH, Inc., to plaintiff in the Estrada case. 8. Case management and initial orders: The parties are ORDERED to confer as to proposed orders for the list found herein. See order for further specifics and instructions. Signed by Judge Leigh Martin May on 2/10/2021.(tmf) (Entered: 06/23/2021)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/22/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#6) Case transferred in from District of Minnesota; Case Number 0:21-cv-01337. Original file certified copy of transfer order and docket sheet received. (Entered: 06/22/2021)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/21/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#5) CERTIFIED COPY OF CONDITIONAL TRANSFER ORDER (CTO-25) transferring case to the Northern District of Georgia per the MDL Panel for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. Case assigned to Judge Leigh Martin May.(MMP) [Transferred from Minnesota on 6/22/2021.] (Entered: 06/22/2021)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/04/2021
  • Docket(#4) (Text-Only): Notice re: Non-Admitted AttorneyWe have received documents listing Levi M. Plesset as counsel of record. If he or she wishes to be listed as an attorney of record in this case, he or she must be admitted to the bar of the U.S. District Court of Minnesota in accordance with #Local Rule 83.5 (a), (b) and (c) or temporarily admitted pro hac vice in accordance with #Local Rule 83.5 (d) or (e).For more admissions information and forms, please see the Attorney Forms Section of the courts website at (CLK) [Transferred from Minnesota on 6/22/2021.] (Entered: 06/04/2021)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/04/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#3) Summons Issued as to Duramed Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Teva Women's Health, Inc., Teva Women's Heath, LLC. (CLK) [Transferred from Minnesota on 6/22/2021.] (Entered: 06/04/2021)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/04/2021
  • Docket(#2) TEXT ONLY ENTRY: CLERK'S NOTICE OF INITIAL CASE ASSIGNMENT. Case assigned to Judge Susan Richard Nelson per Civil (3rd, 4th - Master) list, referred to Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright. Please use case number 21-cv-1337 SRN/ECW. (CLK) [Transferred from Minnesota on 6/22/2021.] (Entered: 06/04/2021)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/04/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#1) COMPLAINT against Duramed Pharmaceuticals, Inc. dba Teva Women's Health, Inc., Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Teva Women's Health, Inc., Teva Women's Heath, LLC (filing fee $ 402, receipt number AMNDC-8798485) filed by Devin Ashley Brown. Filer requests summons issued. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet) (Johnston, Jason) [Transferred from Minnesota on 6/22/2021.] (Entered: 06/04/2021)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases

Latest cases where Teva Women's Heath, LLC is a litigant

Latest cases where Duramed Pharmaceuticals Inc doing business as Teva Women's Health Inc is a litigant

Latest cases where Teva Women's Health, LLC is a litigant

Latest cases where Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. is a litigant