Audrict et al v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. et al
Filing
15
ORDER AND REASONS granting in part and denying in part 9 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. Plaintiffs must file their amended complaint within ten days. All but the LPLA claims are dismissed with prejudice. Signed by Judge Martin L.C. Feldman on 3/7/2014. (my, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
CAROLYN AUDRICT ET AL.
CIVIL ACTION
V.
NO. 14-31
DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS, INC. ET AL.
SECTION: “F”
ORDER & REASONS
Before the Court is defendants' motion to dismiss under Rule
12(b)(6). For the reasons that follow, the motion is GRANTED in
part and DENIED without prejudice in part.
Background
This products liability lawsuit arises from surgery injuries
Carolyn Audrict allegedly sustained after implantation of the PFC
Sigma
Knee
defendants.
System,
a
total
knee
prosthesis
manufactured
by
Mrs. Audrict and her husband, Erroll Audrict, Sr.,
filed suit in state court raising multiple claims.
Defendants
removed the suit, and now move to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
I.
A.
Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows
a party to move for dismissal of a complaint for failure to state
a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Such a motion is rarely
granted because it is viewed with disfavor.
See Lowrey v. Tex. A
& M Univ. Sys., 117 F.3d 242, 247 (5th Cir. 1997) (quoting Kaiser
Aluminum & Chem. Sales, Inc. v. Avondale Shipyards, Inc., 677 F.2d
-1-
1045, 1050 (5th Cir. 1982)).
Under Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a
pleading must contain a "short and plain statement of the claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief."
Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009)(citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 8).
"[T]he
pleading
'detailed
standard
factual
Rule
8
allegations,'
announces
but
it
does
demands
not
more
require
than
an
unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation." Id. at
678 (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)).
In considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the Court “accepts ‘all
well-pleaded
facts
as
true,
favorable to the plaintiff.’”
viewing
them
in
the
light
most
See Martin K. Eby Constr. Co. v.
Dall. Area Rapid Transit, 369 F.3d 464 (5th Cir. 2004) (quoting
Jones v. Greninger, 188 F.3d 322, 324 (5th Cir. 1999)).
B.
Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a party
to amend its pleading "as a matter of course within...21 days after
service
of
a
15(a)(1)(B).
motion
under
Rule
12(b)."
Fed.
R.
Civ.
P.
"In all other cases, a party may amend its pleading
only with the opposing party's written consent or the court's
leave.
The
requires."
court
should
freely
give
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).
-2-
leave
when
justice
so
II.
A.
The Louisiana Products Liability Act (LPLA) provides the
exclusive remedy for products liability claims, or harm caused by
a manufacturer’s product. La. R.S. § 9:2800.52; Demahy v. Schwarz
Pharm, Inc., 702 F.3d 177, 182 (5th Cir. 2012); Jefferson v. Lead
Indus. Ass’n, Inc., 106 F. 3d 1245, 1250-51 (5th Cir. 1997). Thus,
it is clear that "[a] plaintiff may not recover from a manufacturer
for damage caused by a product on the basis of any theory of
liability not set forth in the LPLA." La. R.S. § 9:2800.52.
Moreover, even if an action under the LPLA is predicated on
principles of strict liability, negligence, or warranty, these
theories are not available as independent theories of recovery
against the manufacturer.
Stahl v. Novartis Pharma. Corp., 283
F.3d 254, 261 (5th Cir. 2002).
Defendants contend that all of plaintiffs' claims other than
those under the LPLA must be dismissed. The plaintiffs' concede as
much, and the Court agrees.
B.
Under the LPLA, a plaintiff must prove that (1) the defendant
is the manufacturer of the product; (2) her injury or damage was
proximately caused by a characteristic of the product; (3) this
characteristic made the product “unreasonably dangerous”; and (4)
the plaintiff’s damage arose from a reasonably anticipated use of
-3-
the product.
(5th
Cir.
Stahl v. Novartis Pharm. Corp., 283 F.3d 254, 261
2002).
A
plaintiff
may
prove
that
a
product
"unreasonably dangerous" only by establishing that it is so:
in
construction
or
composition;
(2)
in
design;
(3)
is
(1)
due
to
inadequate warning; or (4) due to nonconformity to an express
warranty.
Id.; La. R.S. § 9:2800.54(B)(1-4).
Although defendants insist that plaintiffs have failed to
state
a
claim
under
any
of
these
resolution of the matter premature.
theories,
the
Court
finds
Plaintiffs have requested
leave to amend their complaint to cure any deficiencies.
Although
it is too late for plaintiffs to amend their complaint as a matter
of course, the Court finds that leave to amend is appropriate under
the circumstances.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1),(2).
Accordingly, defendants' motion to dismiss is GRANTED in part,
and DENIED without prejudice in part.
amended complaint within ten days.
Plaintiffs must file their
All but the LPLA claims are
dismissed with prejudice.
New Orleans, Louisiana, March 7, 2014
______________________________
MARTIN L. C. FELDMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-4-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?