Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-02023/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-02023-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Product Liability

---

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

-1- 07-CV-2023

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DOUGLAS E. GILBERT,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO.07-CV-2023 W(WMc)

ORDER (1)DENYING

WATSON’S MOTION TO

DISMISS (DOC NO. 15.) AND

(2) DENYING QUALITEST’S

MOTION TO DISMISS (DOC.

NO. 19.)

vs.

WATSON LABORATORIES, INC., 

QUALITEST

PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

This is an action between Plaintiff Douglas E. Gilbert (“Gilbert”), and Defendants

Watson Laboratories, Inc. (“Watson”), and Qualitest Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

(“Qualitest”). This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331, and the Food,

Drug and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. §301 et. seq. 

On February 7, 2008, Gilbert filed his Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”)

alleging strict products liability, negligence, and breach of warranties. Defendants now

move to dismiss the SAC pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

The Court decides the matter on the papers submitted and without oral

argument. See S.D. Cal Civ. R. 7.1(d.1). For the reasons stated below, the Court

DENIES Defendants’ Motions.

Case 3:07-cv-02023-W-WMC Document 27 Filed 10/09/08 Page 1 of 6
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

-2- 07-CV-2023

I. BACKGROUND

Between 2002 and 2005, Gilbert was prescribed and used the medication

Prednisone for various ailments. (SAC p.1–3.) Sometime in May 2005, Gilbert began

having problems with and experiencing pain in his hips. (Id. p.2.) On October 19,

2005, Gilbert was diagnosed with Avascular Necrosis of the hip (“AVN”). (Id. p.3.) At

some point thereafter, Gilbert became aware of a link between ingesting Prednisone and

AVN.

On October 18, 2007, Gilbert filed a one-paragraph complaint asking for

“assistance in seeking damages as compensation for [his] condition.” (Compl. p.1.)

Gilbert concurrently filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) and a motion

to appoint counsel. (Doc. Nos. 2, 3.) On November 28, 2007, the Court denied

Gilbert’s IFP motion without prejudice and dismissed the complaint for failure to pay the

filing fee. (Doc. No. 4)

On December 21, 2007, Gilbert filed his First Amended Complaint (“FAC”).

(Doc. No. 5.) The FAC restated in-full the allegations in the original complaint. (FAC

p.1.) Further, the FAC alleged that the “manufacturers of [Prednisone] did not give

adequate warning about the possibility of acquiring AVN from using the medication.”

(FAC p.1.) Gilbert also filed an amended IFP motion and a request for appointment of

counsel. (Doc. Nos. 6, 7.) On January 11, 2008, the Court granted Gilbert’s IFP

motion, but dismissed the FAC for failure to plead the grounds upon which jurisdiction

was based as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(1). The Court granted

Gilbert leave to amend.

On February 7, 2008, Gilbert filed his SAC alleging that jurisdiction is proper

under 28 U.S.C. §1331, and the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. §301 et seq.

(SAC ¶1.) The SAC contains three claims: strict products liability, negligence, and

breach of warranties. (Id. ¶¶3–30.) On July 7, 2008, and July 30, 2008, Watson and

Qualitest, respectively, filed the current motions to dismiss.

Case 3:07-cv-02023-W-WMC Document 27 Filed 10/09/08 Page 2 of 6
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

-3- 07-CV-2023

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A. Motion to Dismiss

This motion is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which

mandates that the Court dismiss a cause of action that fails to state a claim upon which

relief can be granted. A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) tests the complaint’s

sufficiency. See North Star Int’l. v. Arizona Corp. Comm’n., 720 F.2d 578, 581 (9th

Cir. 1983). All material allegations in the complaint, “even if doubtful in fact,” are

assumed to be true. Id. The court must assume the truth of all factual allegations and

must “construe them in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Gompper v.

VISX, Inc., 298 F.3d 893, 895 (9th Cir. 2002); see also Walleri v. Fed. Home Loan Bank

of Seattle, 83 F.3d 1575, 1580 (9th Cir. 1996).

As the Supreme Court recently explained, “[w]hile a complaint attacked by a

Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff’s

obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitlement to relief’ requires more than labels

and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not

do.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964 (2007). Instead, the

allegations in the complaint “must be enough to raise a right to relief above the

speculative level.” Id. at 1964–65. 

III. DISCUSSION

A. Gilbert’s Claims Are Not Barred By the Statute of Limitations

Defendants argue that Gilbert’s claims are time-barred under California Code of

Civil Procedure section 335.1. (Defs.’ Supp. Mems. p.6.) Gilbert disagrees, contending

that the statute of limitations is tolled until a plaintiff discovers that a particular

defendant’s conduct caused the injury.(Pl.’s Opp’n Mem. p.4.)

Section 335.1 provides a two year statute of limitations for actions for assault,

battery, or injury to, or for the death of, an individual caused by the wrongful neglect

of another. This includes products liability cases. See Cal. Civ. P. Code § 335.1; Pooshs

Case 3:07-cv-02023-W-WMC Document 27 Filed 10/09/08 Page 3 of 6
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

1

Because none of Gilbert’s complaints establish when he became aware of the link

between his use of Prednisone and the AVN, the Court need not address the relation-back

issue.

-4- 07-CV-2023

v. Altria Group, Inc., 331 F.Supp 2d 1089,1092 (N.D. Cal. 2004). The statute of

limitations begins when a plaintiff discovers or through the use of reasonable diligence

should have discovered that a particular defendant’s conduct caused the injury. Jolly

v. Eli Lilly & Co., 44 Cal.3d 1103, 1110–11 (Cal. 1998).

According to the SAC, Gilbert began experiencing hip pain in May 2005, and was

diagnosed with AVN in October of that same year. Gilbert does not allege when he

suspected a link between the Prednisone and the AVN. Further, there is nothing in the

SAC or Defendants’ motions remotely suggesting when Gilbert should have suspected

his use of Prednisone caused his hip injury. And in deciding a motion to dismiss, the

Court must draw all inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.

Gompper, 298 F.3d at 895. Accordingly, the Court finds that based on the allegations

in the SAC, Gilbert’s claims are not time barred.1

B. The SAC States a Claim For Breach of Warranties

Defendants contend that privity of contract is a prerequisite in California for

recovery on a breach of warranty claim, and that no such privity was present between

Defendants and Gilbert.(Defs.’Supp. Mems. p.8.) Gilbert argues that no evidence has

been presented as to whether privity was present between the parties, and that dismissal

is therefore improper.

Under the motion to dismiss standard, the Court must assume the truth of all the

factual allegations in the complaint. Gompper, 298 F.3d at 895. Here, Gilbert alleges

that Defendants were “in the business of formulating, manufacturing, selling, and

distributing the prescription drug Prednisone.” (SAC ¶9, emphasis added.) Although

Gilbert alleges that he was prescribed Prednisone by his physician, nothing in the

Case 3:07-cv-02023-W-WMC Document 27 Filed 10/09/08 Page 4 of 6
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

-5- 07-CV-2023

complaint affirmatively shows that he did not receive the drug directly from Defendants.

Accordingly, Gilbert has properly stated a claim for breach of warranties.

C. The SAC States a Claim for Strict Products Liability

Defendants contend that strict liability for a design defect does not exist for

prescription drugs, and that the duty to warn runs only the doctor, not the patient, thus

precluding Gilbert from asserting a claim based on strict liability. (Defs.’ Supp. Mems. 9.)

Gilbert argues that whether adequate warnings were provided is an issue of proof at trial,

and that dismissal at this stage is therefore improper. (Pl.’s Opp’n Mem. 5.)

A drug manufacturer is not strictly liable for injuries caused by a prescription drug

so long as the drug was properly prepared and accompanied by warnings of its dangerous

propensities that were either known or reasonably scientifically knowable at the time of

distribution. Brown v. Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco, 44

Cal.3d 1049, 1069 (Cal. 1988).

Here, Gilbert has alleged that Prednisone was not properly prepared and was not

accompanied by warnings of its dangerous side-effects, mainly, causing AVN. Gilbert

has further alleged that Defendants were aware Prednisone causes bone loss and bone

disease, and that Defendants purposely concealed this information. Accordingly,

Gilbert has met his pleading burden.

Further, Defendants do not cite any law to show that Gilbert must allege, as an

element of his claim, that Defendants failed to warn Gilbert’s physicians of the harmful

side-effects of Prednisone. At this early stage in the litigation, the Court must make all

reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Gompper,

298 F.3d at 895. Here, it is reasonable to infer from the complaint that if Gilbert was

not adequately warned about the side-effects of Prednisone, neither were 

his physicians. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendants’ motions to dismiss.

Case 3:07-cv-02023-W-WMC Document 27 Filed 10/09/08 Page 5 of 6
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

-6- 07-CV-2023

IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

In light of the foregoing, the Court DENIES Watson’s motion to dismiss (Doc.

No. 15.) and DENIES Qualitest’s motion to dismiss. (Doc. No. 19.)

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 9, 2008

Hon. Thomas J. Whelan

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-02023-W-WMC Document 27 Filed 10/09/08 Page 6 of 6