Complaint Against ELI Lilly and Company INC., Novo Nordisk A/S, Novo Nordisk INC. , Filed by Donald L. Dietz, JR. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Designation Form)(Goldstein, Jason)
PARTIES
1At all relevant times hereto, Plaintiff DONALD L. DIETZ JR was a resident and citizen of the state of Pennsylvania in the county of Shirleysburg.
2Plaintiff was prescribed and took Ozempic and Mounjaro as directed by his physicians.
3As a result of his use of Ozempic and Mounjaro, Mr. Dietz Jr. developed bilateral non-arteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy (NAION) and suffers severe physical and emotional injuries and radical changes to his lifestyle given his severe loss of sight.
4Novo Nordisk Inc. (“Novo Nordisk”) is a Delaware corporation that has its principal place of business at 800 Scudders Mill Road, Plainsboro, New Jersey 08536.
5Defendant Novo Nordisk Inc. is wholly owned by Novo Nordisk US Commercial Holdings, Inc.
6Novo Nordisk is the manufactures of Ozempic.
7Eli Lilly and Company Inc. (“Eli Lilly”) is an Indiana corporation that has its principal place of business at 893 S Delaware St, Indianapolis, IN 46225.
8Defendant Eli Lilly and Company Inc. is a publicly traded company owned mostly by Lilly Endowment Inc.
9Eli Lilly and Company Inc. is the manufacturer of Mounjaro.
10The Novo Nordisk Defendant’s website states that “the vast majority of our U.S. injectable diabetes and obesity products are produced and packaged at the Clayton aseptic fill- finish site. Upon information and belief, this refers to Novo Nordisk’s manufacturing facility in Clayton, North Carolina, operated by Novo Nordisk Pharmaceutical Industries LP.
11Upon information and belief, Defendant Novo Nordisk Pharmaceutical Industries LP is the labeler for Ozempic, and Defendants Novo Nordisk A/S and Novo Nordisk Inc. are identified on Ozempic’s label. The Novo Nordisk Defendants also designed, researched, manufactured, tested, advertised, promoted, marketed, sold, and/or distributed Ozempic.
12Upon information and belief, Defendants failed to warn physicians and the end users of Ozempic and/or Mounjaro of the complications and devastating effects of which the companies knew or should have known, including NAION, which can result in blindness and permanent vision loss.
13Upon information and belief, Defendants failed to warn the end users of Ozempic and/or Mounjaro of the complications and devastating effects of which the company knew or should have known.
14Upon information and belief, Defendants’ marketing was deceptive and misleading about the true risks associated with the use of Ozempic and/or Mounjaro, risks which the companies knew or should have known.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
15This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1332(a) as the matter in controversy exceeds the value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs and is between citizens of different states and/or a foreign state, as Plaintiff is a citizen of the State of Pennsylvania. and each Defendant is neither incorporated nor has its principal place of business in the State of Pennsylvania.
16This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants consistent with the United States Constitution and 42 Pa. Consol. Stat. Ann. §5322 (Pennsylvania’s “long arm” statute), as Plaintiff’s claims arise out of Defendants’ transaction of business, their tortious acts within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, their doing a series of similar acts for the purpose of thereby realizing pecuniary benefit, and by virtue of Defendants’ substantial, continuous, and systematic contacts with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
17This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining common law and state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
18Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) as a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in this District. Defendants routinely market their products at issue in this District and conduct business in this District related to their products at issue in the state of Pennsylvania. Venue is further proper as Plaintiff is a resident of Pennsylvania, was prescribed Defendants’ product in the state of Pennsylvania, and it is where her injury and subsequent treatment has occurred.
BACKGROUND
I.
The Development and Approval of Ozempic and Wegovy
19In the early 1990s, Novo Nordisk researchers discovered that when they injected into rats a chemical compound known as liraglutide—a GLP-1 (glucagon-like peptide-1) agonist— the drug caused the rats to stop eating almost entirely.1
20GLP-1 agonists are a class of medications that can help lower blood sugar levels and promote weight loss.2 An agonist is a manufactured substance that attaches to a cell receptor and causes the same action as the naturally occurring substance.3 Thus, GLP-1 agonists work by mimicking a naturally occurring GLP-1 hormone.
21To describe the process in other words, GLP-1 medications bind to GLP receptors to trigger the effects (or roles) of the GLP-1 hormone. The higher the dose of the GLP-1 agonist, the more extreme the effects.4 1 https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/17/health/weight-loss-drugs-obesity-ozempic-wegovy.html (last visited Feb. 13, 2025). 2 https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/articles/13901-glp-1-agonists (last visited Feb. 13, 2025) 3 Id. 4 Id.
Read the full filing
You’re reading pages 1–5 of 69. Register free to read the complete 69-page transcript on this page.
Register free to continue reading →
These are public U.S. federal court records, available free from PACER and the court. Registration unlocks our full on-page transcript — a convenience service.
advertisement
Public U.S. federal court record (district court docket 73105983, document 1). Source via the RECAP Archive (Free Law Project). The same record is available from PACER. Informational only — not legal advice.