United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 21-2877 TERRY PAULSEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES and ABBVIE INC., Defendants-Appellees. ____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. No. 1:15-cv-04144 — John F. Kness, Judge. ____________________

ARGUED MAY 24, 2022 — DECIDED JULY 8, 2022 ____________________

Before EASTERBROOK, WOOD, and BRENNAN, Circuit Judges. BRENNAN, Circuit Judge. More than 18 years ago, Terry Paulsen received two injections of a prescription medication. After experiencing more health problems, she filed several personal injury lawsuits against the companies that devel- oped and distributed the drug. Because her lawsuits were not timely filed within the applicable statute of limitations, we af- firm the district court’s decision granting the defendants’ mo- tion for summary judgment. 2 No. 21-2877

I Paulsen was diagnosed with endometriosis, a gynecologi- cal condition involving tissue around the uterus. To treat her condition, she received injections of Lupron Depot 3.75 mg (“Lupron”) on February 11, 2004 and March 16, 2004 from her physician in Georgia. Shortly afterward she began experienc- ing health problems, including severe bone and joint pain, memory loss, and fevers. Six years later, on April 20, 2010, Paulsen filed a complaint in federal court in the Eastern District of New York. The com- plaint named Abbott Laboratories, TAP Pharmaceutical Prod- ucts, Inc., and others as defendants. Several months later that case was transferred ultimately to the Northern District of Il- linois, the district in which each defendant maintained its principal place of business. Paulsen voluntarily dismissed her claims in May 2014. About a year later, she moved to reopen the case, but the district court denied her request. On May 11, 2015, Paulsen filed a second lawsuit in the Northern District of Illinois, asserting various personal injury claims in connection with the 2004 Lupron injections. These claims sought relief based on theories of product liability, negligence, breach of warranty, and misrepresentation. The complaint again named Abbott and TAP Pharmaceutical Products among the defendants. A circuitous procedural his- tory followed. After multiple motions to dismiss, several amended complaints, and the addition of AbbVie Inc. as a de- fendant, only two claims remained: (1) a strict liability failure- to-warn claim against AbbVie and Abbott; and (2) a negligent misrepresentation claim against Abbott. No. 21-2877 3

Limited discovery was permitted about “(1) when Plain- tiff’s claim accrued; (2) whether the second amended com- plaint as to AbbVie properly relates back under [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c)]; and (3) the roles of the remaining defendants vis-à-vis the manufacturing and development of Lupron.” Following the close of discovery, the defendants moved for summary judgment. When evaluating Paulsen’s claims, the district court applied Illinois procedural law and Georgia substantive law, reasoning that Paulsen’s injury oc- curred in Georgia, and Illinois lacked a stronger relationship to the action, as would be required under the applicable legal standard. The district court granted the defendants summary judg- ment on both claims. First, the court ruled that Paulsen’s strict liability failure-to-warn claim was time-barred by Georgia’s 10-year statute of repose. 1 O.C.G.A. § 51-1-11(b)(2) (“No ac- tion shall be commenced pursuant to this sub