Blair v. Medtronic, Inc.

Filing 27

Order by Hon. Samuel Conti granting 14 Motion to Dismiss. (sclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/30/2015)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

ROBERT BLAIR,
Plaintiff,

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

9
v.

10
11

MEDTRONIC, INC., and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive,

12

Defendants.

13

) Case No. 3:15-cv-01678-SC
)
) ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
) DISMISS
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

14
15

I.

16

INTRODUCTION
Now before the Court is Defendants' motion to dismiss the
The matter is fully briefed1 and appropriate

17

above captioned case.

18

for resolution without oral argument under Civil Local Rule 7-1(b).

19

For the reasons set forth below, the motion to dismiss is GRANTED.

20

Plaintiff, however, is given LEAVE TO AMEND.

21
22

II.

23

FACTS
This case was originally filed in the Superior Court of

24

California, County of San Francisco ("state court") on April 2,

25

2015.

26

("Plaintiff") used a form complaint for personal injury, property

27

damage, and wrongful death, with only a single paragraph of non-

28

1

See ECF 1, Ex A ("Compl.")

Plaintiff Robert Blair

See ECF Nos. 14 ("Mot."); 15 ("MJN"); 16 ("Opp'n"); 17 ("Reply").

1

formulaic text.

Accordingly, the Court has very few facts alleged

2

before it within the Complaint, set forth below in their entirety.
Plaintiff identifies the Defendants as Medtronic, Inc.

3
4

("Medtronic") and Does 1-50 (collectively, "Defendants").

5

¶¶ 5, 6, 8.

6

business in San Francisco, California.

7

Removal, Defendants disagree.2)

8

1-50 are agents or employees acting within the scope of their

9

duties or whose capacities are otherwise unknown.

United States District Court

Plaintiff alleges that Medtronic has a place of
Id.

(Per the Notice of

Plaintiff also alleges that Does

Id. at ¶ 6.

By the boxes checked, the Court deduces Plaintiff brings suit

10
For the Northern District of California

Id. at

11

for products liability and general negligence, having suffered wage

12

loss, loss of use of property, hospital and medical expenses,

13

general damage, property damage, loss of earning capacity, and

14

other damage consisting of pre-judgment interest.

15

11.

16

damages, and damages in an amount according to the proof.

Compl. at ¶¶ 10-

Plaintiff accordingly seeks compensatory damages, punitive

17

Again, through boxes checked, the Court deduces that Plaintiff

18

brings its suit for products liability because on or about April 7,

19

2013, Plaintiff was injured by Medtronic M110901AAB, which the

20

Court presumes is a device.

21

language and boxes checked, "[e]ach of the defendants knew the

22

product would be purchased and used without inspection for defects.

23

The product was defective when it left the control of each

24

defendant.

25

both of two ways offered by the form.

26

it was "used in the manner intended by the defendants."

27

2

28

Id. at ¶ Prod. L-1.

Per the form

The product at the time of injury was being" used in
Id. at ¶ Prod. L-2.

First,

Id.

The Court hears this case via diversity jurisdiction. Relevant
thereto, Medtronic is a Minnesota corporation whose principal place
of business is Minneapolis. See ECF Nos. 1 at ¶ 6; 1-1 at ¶ 2.

2

1

Second, it was "used in a manner that was reasonably foreseeable by

2

defendants as involving a substantial danger not readily apparent.

3

Adequate warnings of the danger were not given."

4

was a purchaser and user of the product.

5

Id.

Plaintiff

Id. at ¶ Prod. L-3.

Plaintiff's injury was the proximate result of three checked-

6

box counts:

Strict liability, negligence, and breach of warranty.

7

Id. at ¶¶ Prod. L-4; Prod. L-5; Prod. L-6.

8

resulted because Defendants "manufactured or assembled the

9

product," "designed and manufactured component parts supplied to

Strict liability

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

10

the manufacturer," and "sold the product to the public."

11

Prod. L-4(a)-(c).

12

duty to [P]laintiff."

13

alleged to exist because Defendants "breached an implied warranty"

14

and "breached an express warranty which was" "written" (vice oral).

15

Id. at ¶ Prod. L-6.

16

Id. at ¶¶

Negligence resulted because Defendants "owed a
Id. at ¶ Prod. L-5.

Breach of warranty is

The information provided in the Complaint that was not

17

described above and strictly the result of filling in a generalized

18

form was Plaintiff's description of its cause of action for general

19

negligence.

20

legal proximate cause of damages to plaintiff" "on (date): or about

21

April 7, 2013" and "at (place): or around [sic]" by the following:

22
23
24
25
26
27

There, Plaintiff alleged that Defendants were "the

Plaintiff was recipient of a neurostimulator device that
was surgically placed in his back. This subject device
was the product of Medtronic, Inc.
As such, Defendant
Medtronic, Inc. owed a duty to Plaintiff to inspect,
maintain and insure that the device was functioning
properly and safely. Defendant Medtronic, Inc. breached
this duty of care to Plaintiff.
As a direct and legal
result of this breach of the duty of care owed to
Plaintiff.
[sic]
Plaintiff
has
suffered
damages,
including special damages and general damages. Plaintiff
has sustained damage in an amount in excess of the
jurisdictional minimum of the Superior Court.

28

3

1

Id. at ¶ GN-1.

Plaintiff's Opposition brief contains no section on

2

the factual background of this case, no additional information

3

related to this case, and no motion (or response to Defendants'

4

motion) for judicial notice.

5

Court is bound to these highly limited facts.

See generally Opp'n.

Therefore, the

6
7
8
9

III. LEGAL STANDARD
A motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6) "tests the legal sufficiency of a claim."

Navarro v.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

10

Block, 250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001).

"Dismissal can be based

11

on the lack of a cognizable legal theory or the absence of

12

sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory."

13

Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir.

14

1988).

15

should assume their veracity and then determine whether they

16

plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief."

17

Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 664 (2009).

18

must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint

19

is inapplicable to legal conclusions.

20

elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory

21

statements, do not suffice."

22

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)).

23

complaint must be "sufficient allegations of underlying facts to

24

give fair notice and to enable the opposing party to defend itself

25

effectively" and "must plausibly suggest an entitlement to relief"

26

such that "it is not unfair to require the opposing party to be

27

subjected to the expense of discovery and continued litigation."

28

Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1216 (9th Cir. 2011).

"When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court

Ashcroft v.

However, "the tenet that a court

Threadbare recitals of the

Id. at 678 (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v.

4

The allegations made in a

While normally a Court would be limited to the complaint,

1
2

certain additional documents may be considered.

Documents

3

referenced in a complaint may be attached to a Rule 12(b)(6) motion

4

or incorporated by reference into the complaint by the Court for

5

purposes of deciding a 12(b)(6) motion.

6

Bank, 613 F.3d 1195, 1199 (9th Cir. 2010) (permitting a court to

7

consider a document submitted "'whose contents are alleged in [the]

8

complaint and whose authenticity no party questions[.]' Branch v.

9

Tunnell, 14 F.3d 449, 454 (9th Cir. 1994), overruled on other

See Rubio v. Capital One

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

10

grounds by Galbraith v. County of Santa Clara, 307 F.3d 1119 (9th

11

Cir. 2002)."); Davis v. HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A., 691 F.3d 1152,

12

1159-60 (9th Cir. 2012) ("the district court may, but is not

13

required to incorporate documents by reference," and doing so will

14

be reviewed for abuse of discretion).

15

the complaint "necessarily relies" on a document, the Court may

16

consider that document if: "(1) the complaint refers to the

17

document; (2) the document is central to the plaintiff's claim; and

18

(3) no party questions the authenticity of the copy attached to the

19

12(b)(6) motion."

20

2006) (citations omitted).

Stated more succinctly, if

Marder v. Lopez, 450 F.3d 445, 448 (9th Cir.

In some instances, per Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(d), a court may sua

21
22

sponte convert a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss to a Rule 56

23

motion for summary judgment if "matters outside the pleadings are

24

presented to and not excluded by the court."

25

Registration Sys., Inc., 754 F.3d 772, 781 (9th Cir. 2014)

26

(refusing to make the conversion where a district court based its

27

dismissal of a case entirely on deficiencies in the pleadings).

28

///

5

In re Mortgage Elec.

1
2

IV.

DISCUSSION
Defendants ask this Court to find the Complaint deficient on

3

four main grounds, including failure to adequately plead this type

4

of case (given treatment by other federal courts in California and

5

elsewhere), federal preemption of the claims at issue, bars by

6

California law to bringing certain causes of action, and failure to

7

plead with specificity sufficient to satisfy Fed. R. Civ. P. Rules

8

8 and 12(b)(6).

9

and the state of the law in California, the case should be

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

10
11

Defendants argue that given the law on preemption

dismissed with prejudice.

Plaintiffs oppose on all counts.

The Court is surprised that Plaintiff would file such a

12

threadbare Complaint, but also recognizes that Plaintiff originally

13

filed under the laws and standards applicable in state court rather

14

than those for Federal Court per the Federal Rules of Civil

15

Procedure.

16

standards or deduce if the Complaint might be adequate in its

17

original jurisdiction -- what is clear and matters now is that the

18

Complaint is clearly insufficient for maintaining a federal case.

19

The Court does not make any attempt to compare the

Plaintiff argues the Complaint is sufficient, claiming that a

20

complaint simply "must contain factual matter, accepted as true, to

21

'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'"

22

Opp'n at 5 (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550

23

U.S. at 570)).

24

favorable to the Complaint, see Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 664, the

25

Complaint is the epitome of "[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements

26

of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements,"

27

which simply "do not suffice."

28

sake of clarity to Plaintiff, the Court reiterates that the

See

Yet even making all assumptions that would be

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 578.

6

For the

1

allegations must be more than threadbare recitals and must be

2

"sufficient allegations of underlying facts to give fair notice and

3

to enable the opposing party to defend itself effectively" and

4

"must plausibly suggest an entitlement to relief" such that "it is

5

not unfair to require the opposing party to be subjected to the

6

expense of discovery and continued litigation."

7

F.3d 1202, 1216 (9th Cir. 2011).

8

to meet these standards, as none of the claims have pleaded

9

sufficient facts to state a claim.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

10

DISMISSED.

Starr v. Baca, 652

The Complaint here utterly fails

Therefore, the claims must be

Defendants' motion is accordingly GRANTED.

However, the Court is not inclined to dismiss with prejudice.

11
12

Certainly, it is not an improper request to ask the Court to take

13

judicial notice of such matters as are referenced and relied upon

14

in the Complaint.

15

448.

16

preemption law or other legal bars to a claim.

17

However, even a preliminary review of cases likely relevant to the

18

Court's analysis of preemption suggest that a close factual

19

analysis will be required to determine if this is a case where

20

claims run parallel to or are preempted by relevant federal law.

21

See, e.g., Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, 518 U.S. 470 (1996), Stengel v.

22

Medtronic, Inc., 704 F.3d 1224 (9th Cir. 2013) (en banc); see also

23

Perez v. Nidek Co., 711 F.3d 1109, 1117-20 (9th Cir. 2013);

24

Gilstrap v. United Air Lines, Inc., 709 F.3d 995, 1006 (9th Cir.

25

2013); McClellan v. I-Flow Corp., 776 F.3d 1035, 1040-41 (9th Cir.

26

January 23, 2015).

27

engaged in a careful, claim-by-claim analysis in deciding whether

28

and how these cases should apply.

See Rubio, 613 F.3d at 1199; Marder, 450 F.3d at

It is also not unreasonable to ask the Court to consider
See Mot. at 8-18.

Other district courts within this Circuit have

See, e.g., Seedman v. Cochlear

7

1

Americas, No. SACV 15-00366 JVS (JCGx), 2015 WL 4768239, at *8

2

(C.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2015); Eidson v. Medtronic, Inc., 40 F. Supp.

3

3d 1202, 1231-33 (N.D. Cal. 2014); Ramirez v. Medtronic Inc., 961

4

F. Supp. 2d 977, 996 (D. Ariz. 2013), clarified on denial of

5

reconsideration (Oct. 24, 2013).

6

embark on a legal analysis with such a sparsely developed Complaint

7

where Plaintiff has yet to amend or be given any chance to fairly

8

present its case.

9

dismiss with prejudice.

The Court is therefore loathe to

The Court thus declines the invitation to

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

10
11
12

V.

CONCLUSION
Defendants' motion to dismiss is GRANTED.

The Complaint is

13

DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

14

Complaint within 30 days of the date of this Order.

15

applicable, Defendants are permitted to again raise the same

16

arguments brought forth in its current motion to dismiss.

17

Plaintiff is advised that the Court will not forgo analysis of

18

preemption or legal bars to this suit a second time if the

19

Complaint remains similarly threadbare or fails to consider the

20

information submitted in the motion for judicial notice.

21

motion for judicial notice is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

22

Plaintiff may file a First Amended
If still

Parties have been referred to private mediation.

The

ECF No. 24.

23

The deadline for mediation is hereby extended 30 days to permit

24

Plaintiff an opportunity to file a First Amended Complaint.

25

IT IS SO ORDERED.

26
27

Dated: September 30, 2015

________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

28

8