Duane Morris Class Action Review - 2023 - Report - Page 297
alleging violation of the RICO. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint as an
impermissible shotgun pleading under Eleventh Circuit case law. The district court
agreed and dismissed the complaint without prejudice and with leave to amend. The
district court ruled that the complaint listed 67 related and unrelated defendants across
two groups, thereby creating confusion and failing to provide a factual basis to
distinguish the conduct of individual defendants. The district court also found that the
complaint asserted irrelevant matters and allegations, making it virtually impossible to
know which factual allegations were intended to support which claims for relief. The
plaintiffs appealed the ruling, and the Eleventh Circuit affirmed. It determined that the
plaintiffs failed to sufficiently allege how its injuries were traceable to the conduct of
each defendant. Id. at *10. The Eleventh Circuit thus affirmed the district court’s ruling to
the extent that it dismissed for lack of standing the plaintiffs’ claims against the
defendants who it did not allege caused it injury. Id. at *11. The Eleventh Circuit further
explained that as to the 14 defendants who did manufacture products allegedly
purchased by members of the local union, there was an economic injury fairly traceable
to them as the manufacturers of those drugs and thus the district court erred in finding
that the plaintiffs lacked standing on that aspect of the complaint. The Eleventh Circuit
cited multiple case law authorities that have held that whether a plaintiff can represent
unnamed class members whose claims fell under different states’ laws was a question
for class certification and thus not appropriate to decide at the motion to dismiss stage.
The Eleventh Circuit therefore determined that whether there was ultimately an
appropriate class representative for individuals whose claims may arise under the laws
of other states would be a question falling under Rule 23, which had not yet been
addressed by the district court. The Eleventh Circuit, however, noted that since the
plaintiffs did not address the district court’s ruling on the shotgun pleading, it must affirm
dismissal of the complaint. The Eleventh Circuit concluded that the plaintiffs had Article
III standing to bring its claims against the defendants who allegedly sold ranitidine
products to its members and for which it provided reimbursements. For class
representation purposes, the Eleventh Circuit ruled that “the claims that the plaintiffs
made on behalf of class members who [reimbursed purchases of ranitidine products in
other states] need not be stricken or disregarded,” as those claims “may be considered”
when determining the appropriateness of class certification under Rule 23. For these
reasons, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s
ruling granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss.
C.
Class-Wide Summary Judgment Rulings
A motion for summary judgment in a RICO class action is rarely granted, but in 2022,
two courts granted defense motions to eliminate the class claims.
In Bhambhani, et al. v. Innovative Health Solutions, Inc., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106753
(D. Md. May 14, 2022), the plaintiffs filed a class action on behalf of themselves and
other similarly- situated individuals alleging civil violations of the RICO,
fraudulent misrepresentation, intentional misrepresentation by concealment or nondisclosure, and civil conspiracy. Id. at *1-2. The defendant brought a motion for
summary judgment and the court granted the defendant’s motion. The plaintiffs were
anesthesiologists, and alleged that the defendants, a group of corporations marketing,
296
© Duane Morris LLP 2023
Duane Morris Class Action Review – 2023
