Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01834/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01834-0/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

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Ryan Sieloff, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Stryker Corporation; Stryker Sales

Corporation, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 12-01834-PHX-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it defendants' motion to dismiss (doc. 8). Plaintiff did not

respond to the motion and the time for doing so has long since expired. See LRCiv 7.2(c).

Plaintiff's complaint alleges that he developed chondrolysis and suffered serious

injuries as a direct and proximate result of being administered a local anesthetic into his left

shoulder joint via the defendants' pain pump. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages from

defendants under the following theories: (1) strict products liability for design defect; (2)

strict products liability for defect due to inadequate warning; (3) strict products liability for

defect due to nonconformance with representations; (4) strict products liability for defect due

to failure of adequate test; (5) negligence; (6) breach of express warranty; (7) breach of

implied warranty; (8) fraud/misrepresenation; (9) negligent misrepresentation; (10) violation

of the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act; and (11) punitive damages. 

Case 2:12-cv-01834-FJM Document 11 Filed 11/16/12 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

Defendants move to dismiss counts three, four, six, seven, eight, nine, ten and eleven

for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Because plaintiff failed to

respond to the motion, we construe the lack of a response as a concession and grant the

motion summarily. See LRCiv 7.2(i) (“if . . . counsel does not serve and file the required

answering memoranda . . . such non-compliance may be deemed a consent to the denial or

granting of the motion and the Court may dispose of the motion summarily”).

We dismiss counts three and four because they are not based on a cognizable legal

theory. Counts six, seven, eight, nine, ten and eleven fail to meet the pleading standard set

forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) and 12(b)(6). Plaintiff's sixth cause of action fails because the

complaint does not state specific facts that demonstrate any actionable express warranty

existed, or that the warranty became part of the basis of the bargain. See A.R.S. § 47-2313.

We dismiss count seven because theories of breach of implied warranties and strict liability

merge in product liability actions. See Scheller v. Wilson Certified Foods, Inc., 114 Ariz.

159, 161, 559 P.2d 1074, 1076 (Ct. App. 1976). Plaintiff's eighth, ninth, and tenth causes of

actions for fraud and misrepresentation fail under Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b) because they are not

pled with particularity. Plaintiff alleges that defendants represented to the public and

healthcare community that the pain pump was safe and effective. However, plaintiff wholly

fails to identify the time or place of the alleged fraudulent statements, and any specific

communications that he or his prescribing physician viewed or relied upon. Finally, we

dismiss count eleven for punitive damages because plaintiff's generic, boilerplate allegation

that defendants' actions were willful, malicious, outrageous, and unconscionable, does not

satisfy Ashcroft v. Iqbal 556 U.S. 662, 679, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1950 (2009).

IT IS ORDERED GRANTING defendants' motion to dismiss counts three, four, six,

seven, eight, nine, ten and eleven (doc. 8). 

DATED this 16th day of November, 2012.

.

Case 2:12-cv-01834-FJM Document 11 Filed 11/16/12 Page 2 of 2