Court Considers Remanding Risperdal Breast Cancer Lawsuit to California State Court

Woman argues Johnson & Johnson and Eli Lilly wrongly moved her claim over side effects of Risperdal and Zyprexa to the federal court system, in order to delay the litigation in hopes she would give up, or die of breast cancer first.

A U.S. District Judge plans to hold a hearing this week to determine whether a lawsuit over alleged breast cancer side effects from Risperdal and Zyprexa should be remanded back to state court where it originated.

The original Zyprexa and Risperdal breast cancer lawsuit was filed by Bridgett Brown in California Superior Court in Alameda County in April, alleging manufacturers of the two drugs, and the pharmacy that filled the prescriptions, failed to adequately warn her about the potential side effects that may result from the medications. 

Brown was diagnosed with breast cancer in 2024, indicating that Johnson & Johnson, Eli Lilly and Company, and Kaiser Permanente knew or should have known about the breast cancer risks associated with Risperdal and Zyprexa, yet withheld information from consumers.

Risperdal (risperidone) is an atypical antipsychotic drug approved for the treatment of schizophrenia. While regulators originally approved Risperdal for use among adults with schizophrenia, the antipsychotic has been widely prescribed off-label, including for use among children with bipolar disorder, autism, irritability, aggression and behavior disorders.

Zyprexa (olanzapine) is used to treat schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, decreasing hallucinations and mania.

Both Risperdal and Zyprexa have been named in numerous lawsuits over serious side effects allegedly linked to their use. Johnson & Johson, Risperdal’s manufacturer, faces claims involving off-label prescriptions, particularly in children, where it was tied to complications like gynecomastia (male breast growth) and other hormonal issues. 

Meanwhile, Zyprexa, an Eli Lilly medication, has been linked to risks such as diabetes, weight gain and other metabolic disorders in similar claims. In both cases, plaintiffs argue the manufacturers failed to adequately warn about the drugs’ potential dangers.

In May, the defendants removed Brown’s case to federal court, claiming there was complete diversity between Brown and the manufacturers, who are not based in California. However, in June, Brown filed a motion calling for her lawsuit to be returned to California state court, indicating that the relevant parties are all in California, so the case should stay in the state courts.

In response, U.S. District Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin scheduled a hearing for the motion to remand for October 30, issuing a notice (PDF) that outlined a list of questions the parties should be prepared to answer, including:

• Whether Kaiser Foundation Hospitals are a citizen of California
• If Brown can amend her complaint to allege a claim against Kaiser Foundation Hospitals
• Whether Kaiser Permanente’s involvement in the case and Brown’s treatment extends beyond filling her prescription

Brown has accused the manufacturers of trying to delay the litigation because such cases often take longer to resolve in federal court. She claimed the removal was meant to pressure her to drop the lawsuit, or they are gambling that she will die of breast cancer before the case can go to trial or be settled out of court.

Sign up for more legal news that could affect you or your family.