Clark v. PFIZER INC. (2010)

“If a plaintiff can prove reliance and/or causation in an individual action with the same evidence offered to show class-wide reliance and/or causation, then the issue is one of law and fact common to the class.” Clark v. Pfizer Inc., 990 A.2d 17, 27 (Pa. Super. 2010) (citation omitted) (emphasis supplied).

Clark v. Pfizer Inc., 990 A.2d 17, 24 (Pa.Super.2010).

Clark v. Pfizer Inc., 990 A.2d 17, 24-25 (Pa.Super.) (some citations, quotations, and punctuation marks omitted), appeal denied, 13 A.3d 473 (Pa.2010). 15 “Unlike its federal counterpart at Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b), Pennsylvania’s rule does not require that the class action method be ‘superior’ to alternative modes of suit.” Weinberg v. Sun Co., 740 A.2d 1152, 1162-63 (Pa.Super.1999) (citations omitted), rev’d in part on other grounds, 565 Pa. 612 , 777 A.2d 442 (2001). 16 In Jani…

The typicality prerequisite of Rule 1702(3), which is at issue in the instant case, requires that “the class representative’s overall position on the common issues is sufficiently aligned with that of the absent class members to ensure that [his] pursuit of [his] own interests will advance those of the proposed class members.” Clark v. Pfizer, Inc., 990 A.2d 17, 24-25 (Pa. Super. 2010) (citation omitted); see also id. at 24 (stating that the typicality prerequisite is simila…

Clark , supra at 24 (citations and quotation marks omitted, emphasis in original).

See Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party, 552 U.S. 442 , 454- 58 (2008); cf. Commonwealth v. Yobbagy, 188 A.2d 750, 752 (Pa. 1963); Clark v. Pfizer Inc., 990 A.2d 17, 27-28 (Pa. Super. 2010); Commonwealth v. Johnson, 818 A.2d 514, 521 (Pa. Super. 2003).

Clark v. Pfizer Inc., 990 A.2d 17, 24 (Pa. Super. 2010) (emphasis added) (citations and quotation marks omitted).

In applying the doctrine of res judicata, “the essential inquiry is whether the ultimate and controlling issues have been decided in a prior proceeding in which the parties had an opportunity to appear and assert their rights.” Clark v. Pfizer Inc., 990 A.2d 17, 31 (Pa. Super. 2010) (citation omitted, emphasis added), appeal denied, 13 A.3d 473 (Pa. 2010).

Clark v. Pfizer Inc., 990 A.2d 17, 24 (Pa.Super.2010) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted) (emphasis added), appeal denied, 608 Pa. 658 , 13 A.3d 473 (2010). 5 .

Clark, 990 A.2d at 24 (citations and quotation marks omitted). 21 .

Clark, 990 A.2d at 28 (internal citations omitted).

Clark v. Pfizer, Inc., 990 A.2d 17, 31 (Pa.Super.Ct.2010) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); accord R/S Fin.

See Clark v. Pfizer, Inc., 990 A.2d 17 , 23 n.3 (Pa. Super. 2010) (holding that an order decertifying a class action is appealable as a collateral order); but see Basile v. H&R Block, Inc., 52 A.3d 1202 , 1206 n.4 (declaring: “[t]he Superior Court maintains that orders denying certification, or decertifying a class action, are immediately appealable as collateral orders. . . .

See, e.g., Clark v. Pfizer Inc., 990 A.2d 17 , 23 n. 3 (Pa.Super.2010).

See Clark v. Pfizer, Inc., 990 A.2d 17 (Pa.Super.2010); Johnson & Johnson Trial (“fraud on the market” theory not applied in suit based on deceptive pricing of drugs, including Risperdal, because proof consistent with the theory was not offered at trial).

See Clark v. Pfizer, Inc., 990 A.2d 17 (Pa.Super.2010) (in securities fraud, plaintiffs establish causation and reliance on a class wide basis through aggregate, statistical proof of harm); but see In re Neurontin Mktg., Sales Practices & Prods.

See Clark v. Pfizer, Inc., 990 A.2d 17 (Pa.Super.2010) (in securities fraud, plaintiffs establish causation and reliance on a class wide basis through aggregate, statistical proof of harm); but see In re Neurontin Mlctg., Sales Practices & Prods.

See Clark v. Pfizer, Inc., 990 A.2d 17 (Pa.Super.2010) (in securities fraud, plaintiffs establish causation and reliance on a class wide basis through aggregate, statistical proof of harm); but see In re Neurontin Mlctg., Sales Practices & Prods.