Zoloft Placebo Class Action Lawsuit Hits Statute of Limitations Snag

Top Class Actions’s website and social media posts use affiliate links. If you make a purchase using such links, we may receive a commission, but it will not result in any additional charges to you. Please review our Affiliate Link Disclosure for more information.

A class action lawsuit accusing Pfizer Inc. of misleading consumers about Zoloft’s ability to treat depression has been dismissed, but the federal judge overseeing the false advertising case will allow the plaintiff to retry her claims if she files an amended class action within 21 days.

The Zoloft class action lawsuit was filed in January 2013 by plaintiff Laura Plumlee, who claims Pfizer’s blockbuster antidepressant is no better at treating depression than a placebo. Plumlee claims in the class action lawsuit that for the past 22 years, “Pfizer has engaged in a calculated campaign to mislead consumers and prescribing healthcare professionals about Zoloft’s ability to treat depression. Pfizer knew that Zoloft’s efficacy in treating depression was, at best, marginal and, at worst, nonexistent.”

In a decision issued Feb. 21, U.S. District Court Judge Lucy Koh ruled that the statutes of limitations had passed for Plumlee’s claims, which cite violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law, Consumer Legal Remedies Act and False Advertising Law, because she had stopped taking the SSRI antidepressant and its generic equivalent in 2008.

That would have been the last time that Plumlee could allege an economic injury, yet the UCL has a statute of limitations of four years, while the other two statutes only allow claims filed within three years of the alleged injury. Plumlee had requested that Judge Koh toll the statutes of limitations because she reportedly did not learn of studies that would have supported her Zoloft false advertising claims until 2012.

However, the Ninth Circuit, which hears appeals for cases heard in California federal courts, had ruled that a plaintiff seeking to avoid time-barred claims “must specifically plead facts to show (1) the time and manner of discovery and (2) the inability to have made earlier discovery despite reasonable diligence.” The judge ruled that Plumlee had failed to do so in terms of both time and manner and why she was unable to do so prior to that time.

The Zoloft studies cited in the class action lawsuit noted concerns about its efficacy in treating depression, including four of six Pfizer trials indicating that Zoloft was no more effective than a placebo. Other studies have found similar benefits of using placebos compared to an SSRI antidepressant. The studies had been publicly available for years prior to Plumlee filing of the Zoloft false advertising lawsuit in 2013, which discussed, “articles published three, four, five, 10 and 11 years” prior.

Plumlee’s legal team will have three weeks to find a remedy for the deficiencies regarding the time-barred claims. The new amended Zoloft class action lawsuit will also likely shrink the putative Class from a nationwide one to one consisting solely of California residents, according to a footnote in the order.

Plumlee is represented by class action lawyers Michael Baum, Cynthia Garber, Bijan Esfandari and R. Brent Wisner of Baum Hedlund Aristei & Goldman PC, Christopher Coffin of Pendley Baudin & Coffin LLP and S. Samuel Griffin of the Law Office of S. Samuel Griffin.

The Zoloft Placebo Class Action Lawsuit is Laura Plumlee v. Pfizer Inc., Case No. 13-cv-00414, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California.

Lawsuits concerning Zoloft birth defects are ongoing. If you took Zoloft or another SSRI antidepressant during pregnancy and believe it caused your child to suffer a birth defect, you may have a case to join the Zoloft MDL. Visit the Zoloft & SSRI Antidepressant Birth Defect Class Action Lawsuit Investigation for more details.