Prohias v. Pfizer, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 district · 3 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “1. Defendants' motion [to dismiss Plaintiff's second amended class action complaint] is GRANTED and Plaintiff's Complaint and this action are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, for two primary and independent reasons: 2. First, the conduct that Plaintiff challenges falls within the safe harbor of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act ("FDUTPA"), Fla. Stat. § 501.212 (1), because the promotional and advertising activity attacked in the Complaint is supported by the FDA-approved labeling for Nexium® and thus is "specifically permitted" by federal law. For the same reasons that Plaintiff has not pleaded a valid FDUTPA claim, she has failed to plead that Defendants have received an unjust benefit. Her claim for unjust enrichment thus necessarily fails as well. 3. Second, and independently, even if the FDUTPA safe harbor did not apply, Plaintiff's state law claims would conflict with federal law and the FDA-approved Nexium labeling and therefore are preempted. 4. Finally, as a third independent reason for dismissal, Plaintiff fails to allege the required elements of her FDUTPA and unjust enrichment claims, including failing to allege that Defendants' alleged wrongs caused her to purchase Nexium. While Plaintiff offered at oral argument to amend her Complaint a third time, these allegations, even if added, still would fail to state a claim for the first two reasons stated above. Given these circumstances, the Court concludes that dismissal with prejudice is appropriate. 5. Ac”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 958 So. 2d 1054 - Prohias v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS

2. “the fact that [the plaintiffs] currently take [the cholesterol drug], in light of the information they have, requires [the Court] to conclude that they take [the drug] for its cholesterol reduction or other undisputed health benefits, and therefore cannot claim to have suffered any damage from the allegedly misleading statements about [the drug]’s coronary benefits.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 43 F. Supp. 3d 1333 - Marty v. Anheuser-Busch Companies, LLC

3. “They depend on the faulty premise that the price of [the cholesterol drug] fluctuate[d] based on the public’s knowledge of [the drug]’s benefits, even though drug prices (unlike stock prices which are necessarily set by the price at which buyers are willing to buy, or sellers willing to sell) are fixed by the product’s manufacturer.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 43 F. Supp. 3d 1333 - Marty v. Anheuser-Busch Companies, LLC