Ninth Circuit Holds that Implied Preemption Bars State Law Claims Based on a Violation of the FDCA

03 November 2022 Consumer Class Defense Counsel Blog
Author(s): Kelsey C. Boehm Jaikaran Singh

In Nexus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Central Admixture Pharmacy Services, Inc., 48 F.4th 1040, 1041 (9th Cir. 2022), the Ninth Circuit recently held that the implied preemption doctrine barred state law claims because they were contrary to the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act’s (“FDCA”) exclusive enforcement provision prohibiting private enforcement of the law.

In that case, Nexus Pharmaceuticals (“Nexus”) asserted competitor claims against Central Admixture Pharmacy Services (“Central Admixture”) for failure to obtain FDA-approval of its generic product, which was essentially a copy of Nexus’s FDA-approved product. Id. at 1042. Nexus did not assert a claim for violation of the FDCA because the FDCA prohibits private enforcement. Id. at 1044. Instead, Nexus argued that Central Admixture violated the statutory consumer protection laws of several states1 where it sells the product, all of which “prohibit the sale of drugs not approved by the FDA.” Id. at 1044. The district court dismissed Nexus’s claims under Rule 12(b)(6) on the basis of implied preemption.  It noted that private enforcement of the FDCA is prohibited by express statutory language. In affirming the dismissal, the Ninth Circuit discussed case law on preemption and noted that a common theme of the cases that had allowed state law claims over FDA-regulated products was reliance on traditional common law tort theories of liability, rather than noncompliance with FDA requirements.

The Ninth Circuit found that Nexus did not rely on any traditional state tort law theory, but rather on “state laws that incorporate federal law,” and that “a necessary element of Nexus’s claim is the alleged violation of the FDCA.” Id. at 1048. That is, the court determined that Nexus’s state law claims existed by virtue of FDCA requirements, not traditional state tort law. The Ninth Circuit pointed to precedent protective of the FDA’s statutory monopoly on enforcement authority and issues that may arise if state law exercised enforcement authority: “If state law facilitates enforcement beyond what the FDA has deemed appropriate, then state law claims may indeed ‘stand as an obstacle’ to FDA's enforcement discretion by enabling what the FDA regards as over-enforcement.” Id. at 1048. Indeed, allowing a private action based on other laws “would require litigation of the alleged underlying FDCA violation in a circumstance where the FDA has not itself concluded that there was such a violation.” Id. at 1049 (internal citation omitted).

The Ninth Circuit’s decision stands in contrast to an earlier case decided by the Federal Circuit, which purported to apply Ninth Circuit law. See Allergan v. Athena Cosmetics, 738 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2013). In Allergan, the plaintiff, a manufacturer of an FDA-approved product, asserted a claim against Athena Cosmetics for sale of a competing product not approved by the FDA for violating California’s unfair competition law and patent infringement. The Federal Circuit held that the claims were not impliedly preempted, even though California law merely incorporated FDCA requirements.

In Nexus, the Ninth Circuit found that Allergan was wrongly decided and “misinterprets [the] case law regarding the bar on private enforcement.” Id. at 1049. The court criticized the Allergan decision because it “did not address the FDCA’s prohibition of private enforcement” and noted that had it done so, it “would have required a contrary result.” Id. at 1050.

In addition to directly affecting pharmaceutical companies’ litigation strategies in competitor cases, the Ninth Circuit’s decision has meaningful implications for consumer class actions. Notably, numerous class actions have been filed asserting statutory claims against drug manufacturers and pharmacies for allegedly selling drugs not approved by the FDA.

In light of the Nexus decision, plaintiffs in the Ninth Circuit should heed caution in alleging state law statutory claims based on an FDCA-violation as opposed to a common law tort theory. Similarly, defendants in the Ninth Circuit should consider raising implied preemption arguments early in litigation when the asserted state law claims rely on a violation of the FDCA.

*On September 27, 2022, Nexus filed a petition for rehearing en banc, which has not been decided.



1 California’s Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17001, 17200; Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. Stat. § 501.202(2); Pennsylvania’s Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, 73 Penn. Stat. § 201-3; Arizona’s Unfair Competition Law, AZ Rev Stat § 44-1522; Connecticut’s Unfair Trade Practices Act, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110b.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services

Insights

2023 M&A Outlook
05 December 2022
Foley Ignite
COVID-related Form I-9 Remote Verification Flexibilities Extended Through July 31, 2023
05 December 2022
Labor & Employment Law Perspectives
Learnings from Recent Physician Practice Private Equity Transactions
05 December 2022
Health Care Law Today
Get up to Speed: Blockchain for the Auto Industry
05 December 2022
Dashboard Insights
What You Should Know About Payor/Provider Convergence
25-26 January 2023
Los Angeles, CA
ATA EDGE2022 Policy Conference | American Telemedicine Association
7-9 December 2022
Washington, D.C.
CLE Weeks
5-16 December 2022
Milwaukee, WI
Foley Sponsors Ernst & Young Entrepreneur of the Year® Program
1 December 2021 - 30 November 2022
Michigan and Northwest Ohio Region