Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03213/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03213-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 367
Nature of Suit: TORTS - Personal Injury - Health Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury/Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Product Liability

---

ORDER (No. 3:15-cv-03213-LB)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

San Francisco Division

STEPHEN MONEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOHNSON & JOHNSON, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 3:15-cv-03213-LB

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 

JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

Re: ECF No. 41

INTRODUCTION

The plaintiff Stephen Money sued the defendants Johnson & Johnson and Luxottica, claiming 

violations of California state law for injuries (including pain and temporary blindness) allegedly 

caused by the defendants’ contact lenses. (First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), ECF No. 23.

1

) The 

defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c), 

arguing, among other things, that the 1976 Medical Device Amendments (“MDA”) to the Food, 

Drug, and Cosmetic Act preempt the plaintiffs’ state-law claims. (Motion, ECF No. 41.)

The court finds this matter suitable for determination without oral argument under Civil Local 

Rule 7-1(b). The plaintiff does not dispute that his state-law claims are deficient because he does 

not allege claims that parallel federal requirements. (Opposition, ECF No. 45 at 4-10.) The court 

 

1 Citations are to the Electronic Case File (“ECF”); pin cites are to the ECF-generated page 

numbers at the tops of the documents.

Case 3:15-cv-03213-LB Document 52 Filed 02/01/16 Page 1 of 3
ORDER (No. 3:15-cv-03213-LB) 2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

thus grants the defendants’ motion and grants the plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint.

STATEMENT

In May 2013, Mr. Money “purchased Acuvue Oasys contact lenses manufactured and sold by” 

the defendants. (FAC, ECF No. 23, ¶ 10.) At 6:30 a.m. on May 8, 2013, he put on a new pair of 

the contact lenses. (Id. ¶ 11.) “During the day, the lenses caused a blurring of his vision.” (Id. ¶ 

12.) His eyes “began to become painful in the evening.” (Id.) When he removed the lenses, he 

experienced extreme pain and became blind. (Id.) Over the next several days, he received hospital 

treatment and was “diagnosed with blindness, bilateral corneal damage, and chemical 

conjunctivitis.” (Id. ¶¶ 11-15, 20-22.) By May 12, 2013, his vision improved “to where he could 

see but he was still very sensitive to the light.” (Id. ¶ 15.) The contact lenses were defective due to 

a flaw and/or chemical contamination in the manufacturing or packaging processes. (Id. ¶ 17.) The 

defendants knew this because they recalled Oasys lenses in the past. (Id.) The packaging did not 

adequately warn that users could suffer from blindness, bilateral corneal damage, or chemical 

conjunctivitis. (Id. ) 

Based on these foundations, the plaintiff alleges three claims under California state law: 1) 

strict product liability, 2) negligence, and 3) breach of the implied warranty of merchantability. 

(Id. at 5-7.) The defendants answered and then moved for judgment on the pleadings. (Answers, 

ECF Nos. 33, 34; Motion, ECF No. 41.)

ANALYSIS

After the pleadings are closed “but early enough not to delay trial,” a party may move for 

judgment on the pleadings. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c). “[T]he same standard of review applicable to a 

Rule 12(b) motion applies to its Rules 12(c) analog” because the motions are “functionally 

identical.” Dworkin v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 867 F.2d 1188, 1192 (9th Cir. 1989). A Rule 12(c) 

motion may thus be predicated on either 1) the lack of a cognizable legal theory or 2) insufficient 

facts to support a cognizable legal claim. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 

699 (9th Cir. 1990). When considering a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(c), the court “must 

accept all factual allegations in the complaint as true and construe them in the light most favorable 

to the non-moving party.” Fleming v. Pickard, 581 F.3d 922, 925 (9th Cir. 2009). “A judgment on 

Case 3:15-cv-03213-LB Document 52 Filed 02/01/16 Page 2 of 3
ORDER (No. 3:15-cv-03213-LB) 3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

the pleadings is proper if, taking all of [the plaintiff]’s allegations in its pleadings as true, [the 

defendant] is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Compton Unified School Dist. v. Addison, 

598 F.3d 1181, 1185 (9th Cir. 2010).

The plaintiff does not dispute that the MDA would preempt his claims as he pleads them now. 

(Opposition, ECF No. 45 at 5-6.) Because he pleads generic state-law claims that do not parallel 

federal requirements, the court grants the defendants’ motion. See 21 U.S.C. § 360k(a); Stengel v. 

Medtronic Inc., 704 F.3d 1224, 1227-28 (9th Cir. 2013) (en banc). 

The plaintiff seeks leave to amend to plead claims that parallel federal requirements. 

(Opposition, ECF No. 5 at 6.) Given Rule 15(a)’s liberal standard for amendment, the court grants 

leave. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2); Nunes v. Ashcroft, 375 F.3d 805, 808 (9th Cir. 2004); 

Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051-52 (9th Cir. 2003).

The defendants nonetheless argue in their reply brief that leave to amend is futile because the 

plaintiff’s proposed amended complaint also fails to plead parallel claims. (Reply, ECF No.49 at 

4.) The court thinks it better to evaluate the complaint in the context of a fully briefed challenge to 

it under Rule 12(b)(6) or 12(c). The plaintiff need not file his proposed complaint and instead may 

redraft it to address the defendants’ arguments in the reply brief, including those about the 

sufficiency of the factual allegations under Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), and Bell 

Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007). 

CONCLUSION

The court grants the motion without prejudice to the plaintiff’s filing an amended complaint 

within 28 days from the date of this order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 1, 2016 ______________________________________

LAUREL BEELER

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:15-cv-03213-LB Document 52 Filed 02/01/16 Page 3 of 3