This case was last updated from PACER on 09/18/2021 at 08:35:14 (UTC).

Steele v. Pfizer et al

Case Summary

On September 17, 2021, Paige L. Steele (“Plaintiff”), represented by Sean N. Egan of South Temple Tower STE 1505, filed a products liability lawsuit against Pfizer, Inc., Wyeth, LLC, Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Wyeth Holdings, LLC (collectively, collectively, “WYETH” or “Defendants”), seeking punitive and compensatory damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and other relief for strict liability, negligence, breach of express and implied warranty, fraudulent misrepresentation and fraudulent concealment, negligent and reckless misrepresentation of certain appetite suppressant prescription pharmaceuticals. This case was filed in the United States District Court in the District of Utah with Judge Cecilia M. Romero presiding.

 

The plaintiff brings these claims for strict liability, negligence, breach of express and implied warranty, fraudulent misrepresentation and fraudulent concealment, negligent and reckless misrepresentation, and reckless and wanton conduct arising out of the manufacture, distribution and sale to Plaintiff of certain appetite suppressant prescription pharmaceuticals that caused Plaintiff to develop Primary Pulmonary Hypertension (“PPH”)1, a fatal lung disease.

 

In the complaint, the plaintiff alleged that, “At all times material hereto, Defendants have engaged in the business of selling, distributing, supplying, designing, manufacturing, marketing and promoting the Fenfluramines, which were defective and unreasonably dangerous to consumers, including Plaintiff. At all times material hereto, the Fenfluramines sold, distributed, supplied, designed, manufactured and/or promoted by Defendants were expected to reach, and did reach, prescribing physicians and consumers in the State of Utah, including Plaintiff, without substantial change in the condition in which they were sold.”

 

The plaintiff also alleged that, “But for the aforementioned defective and unreasonably dangerous conditions, Fenfluramines would not have been prescribed to Plaintiff, Plaintiff would not have ingested Fenfluramines either alone or in combination with phentermine, and Plaintiff would not have sustained the injuries alleged herein.”

 

Further, the plaintiff alleged that, “As a direct and proximate cause and legal result of the defective and unreasonably dangerous condition of the drugs, Plaintiff has sustained, and will continue to sustain in the future, serious and permanent injuries; physical pain and suffering; impairment; disability; disfigurement; loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life past and future; time in life that could have been spent doing things other than going to doctors; physically suffering; undergoing medical monitoring; loss of earnings; loss of the ability to earn money in the past and the future; expense of hospitalization; medical and nursing care and treatment and medical monitoring in the past and in the future.”

 

There are nine claims for relief laid down by the plaintiff. The first claim for relief is for alleged strict product liability for defective design. The second claim is for alleged failure to warn. The third claim is for alleged breach of express warranty. The fourth claim is for alleged breach of implied warranty. The fifth claim is for alleged negligence. The sixth claim is for alleged fraudulent misrepresentation and fraudulent concealment. The seventh claim is for alleged negligent and reckless misrepresentation. The eight claim is for plaintiff’s compensatory damages and the ninth claim is for punitive damages.

 

In the prayer for relief, the plaintiff has requested the court to pass an order against the defendants, jointly and severally, for all general and compensatory damages allowable to the plaintiff including compensatory and punitive damages. The plaintiff also requested the court to pass an order for prejudgment and post-judgment interest and costs along with attorneys' fees and such other relief as the court deems just and proper.

 

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:

    2:21-CV-00548

  • Filing Date:

    09/17/2021

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Product Liability

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

Cecilia M. Romero

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

Paige L. Steele

Defendants

Pfizer

Wyeth

Wyeth Pharmaceuticals

Wyeth Holdings

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

Sean N. Egan

Attorney at SOUTH TEMPLE TOWER STE 1505

136 E South Temple

Salt Lake City, UT 84111-1139

 

Court Documents

3 #1

Text of Proposed Order for Pro Hac Admission

#3

(#3) MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice of Thomas F. Coates, III , Registration fee $ 250, receipt number AUTDC-4115496,Attorneys awaiting Pro Hac Vice admission should immediately register to efile and receive electronic notification of case activity in the District of Utah at #https://www.pacer.uscourts.gov/cmecf/dcbk.html.Registration requests will not be approved until the court has granted the pro hac vice motion. Instructions are available on the court's website at #https://www.utd.uscourts.gov/cmecf-electronic-case-filing. filed by Plaintiff Paige L. Steele. (Attachments: #1 Text of Proposed Order for Pro Hac Admission)(Egan, Sean) (Entered: 09/17/2021)

2 #1

Civil Cover Sheet Revised Civil Cover Sheet

#2

(#2) COMPLAINT against Pfizer (Filing fee $ 402, receipt number AUTDC-4115471) filed by Paige L. Steele. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet Revised Civil Cover Sheet) Assigned to Magistrate Judge Cecilia M. Romero (Egan, Sean) (Entered: 09/17/2021)

#1

(#1) Case has been indexed and assigned to Magistrate Judge Cecilia M. Romero. Plaintiff Paige L. Steele is directed to E-File the Complaint and cover sheet (found under Complaints and Other Initiating Documents) and pay the filing fee of $ 402 by the end of the business day.NOTE: The court will not have jurisdiction until the opening document is electronically filed and the filing fee paid in the CM/ECF system. Civil Summons may be issued electronically. Prepare the summons using the courts #PDF version and email it to utdecf_clerk@utd.uscourts.gov for issuance. (mh) (Entered: 09/17/2021)

 

Docket Entries

  • 09/17/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#3) MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice of Thomas F. Coates, III , Registration fee $ 250, receipt number AUTDC-4115496,Attorneys awaiting Pro Hac Vice admission should immediately register to efile and receive electronic notification of case activity in the District of Utah at #https://www.pacer.uscourts.gov/cmecf/dcbk.html.Registration requests will not be approved until the court has granted the pro hac vice motion. Instructions are available on the court's website at #https://www.utd.uscourts.gov/cmecf-electronic-case-filing. filed by Plaintiff Paige L. Steele. (Attachments: #1 Text of Proposed Order for Pro Hac Admission)(Egan, Sean) (Entered: 09/17/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/17/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#2) COMPLAINT against Pfizer (Filing fee $ 402, receipt number AUTDC-4115471) filed by Paige L. Steele. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet Revised Civil Cover Sheet) Assigned to Magistrate Judge Cecilia M. Romero (Egan, Sean) (Entered: 09/17/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/17/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#1) Case has been indexed and assigned to Magistrate Judge Cecilia M. Romero. Plaintiff Paige L. Steele is directed to E-File the Complaint and cover sheet (found under Complaints and Other Initiating Documents) and pay the filing fee of $ 402 by the end of the business day.NOTE: The court will not have jurisdiction until the opening document is electronically filed and the filing fee paid in the CM/ECF system. Civil Summons may be issued electronically. Prepare the summons using the courts #PDF version and email it to utdecf_clerk@utd.uscourts.gov for issuance. (mh) (Entered: 09/17/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where WYETH LLC is a litigant

Latest cases where Wyeth Pharmaceuticals Inc is a litigant

Latest cases where Wyeth Holdings, LLC is a litigant

Latest cases where Inc Pfizer is a litigant