Dist. Ct. did not err in denying plaintiff’s Rule 60(b)(6) motion seeking to reopen lawsuit alleging that defendant had negligently omitted adult suicide risk in label on drug (paroxetine) that played role in suicide death of plaintiff’s decedent, where Ct. of Appeals had previously found that said lawsuit was preempted by federal law governing contents of labels for paroxetine. While plaintiff argued that recent decision in Albrecht, 139 U.S. 1668, constituted change in law with respect to clear evidence standard for impossibility preemption defense for prescription drug labels so as to warrant reopening of case, Ct. of Appeals found that Albrecht merely clarified prior case law on impossibility standard. Moreover, Ct. found that result in earlier appeal would be same under Albrecht, where: (1) prior to instant suicide, defendant had disclosed to FDA relevant data under its desired adult suicide warning; (2) FDA unanimously rejected defendant’s proffered Paxil/paroxetine-specific warning when it mandated that all SSRIs carry uniform class-wide warning label; and (3) plaintiff failed to show that defendant had acquired new evidence after FDA ruling that would have justified change in label. Ct. further found that plaintiff’s filing of Rule 60(b)(6) motion and instant appeal of Dist. Ct's order were not frivolous.
