Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01240/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01240-0/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 09md2087 BTM(AJB); 10cv1240 BTM(AJB) 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE HYDROXYCUT MARKETING

AND SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION

Case No. 09md2087 BTM(AJB)

PHILLIP D. SIMS and CAROL SIMS,

Plaintiffs,

Case No. 10cv1240 BTM(AJB)

ORDER RE MOTION TO DISMISS

COUNT VI

v.

IOVATE HEALTH SCIENCES, U.S.A.,

INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Defendants move to dismiss Count VI of Plaintiffs’ complaint on the ground that

Tennessee’s Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) does not permit recovery for personal injury

claims. Defendants do not dispute that Plaintiffs have properly pled an unfair or deceptive

act declared unlawful under the TCPA, but rather argue that Plaintiffs have failed to plead

economic loss necessary to state a TCPA claim.

Under Tennessee law, a plaintiff cannot recover for personal injuries resulting from

alleged violations of the TCPA. Howard v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., No. 05-CV-27, 2005

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34458, at *9 (E.D. Tenn. Aug. 25, 2005). However, a plaintiff may assert

a claim under the TCPA in the same action as a separate claim for personal injuries, so long

as the TCPA claim is based on non-personal, economic injuries resulting from Defendants’

alleged unfair or deceptive acts. Id.

Here, Defendants are correct to note that Plaintiffs primarily seek personal injury

Case 3:10-cv-01240-BTM-KSC Document 34 Filed 03/23/11 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 09md2087 BTM(AJB); 10cv1240 BTM(AJB) 

damages for a stroke suffered by Mr. Sims, allegedly caused by use of a Hydroxycut product.

Such damages are not cognizable under the TCPA. 

However, Plaintiffs do not seek personal injury damages alone. Plaintiffs allege that

“beginning in 2009 and thereafter,” Mr. Sims made purchases of a Hydroxycut product

(compl. ¶ 53) and seek “restitution of all purchase costs that Plaintiffs’ incurred” (compl. at

pg. 32). Plaintiffs have stated a claim under the TCPA based upon Plaintiffs’ claim for

recovery of money spent to make these purchases. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-18-109. 

Defendants, in the reply brief, restyle their motion as a “Motion to Dismiss Counts II,

III and VI of Plaintiffs’ complaint” and for the first time include a separate section arguing that

product liability claims in Counts II and III are insufficiently pled. The Court will not consider

these arguments. See Bazuaye v. INS, 79 F.3d 118, 120 (9th Cir. 1996) (per curiam)

(“Issues raised for the first time in the reply brief are waived.”). 

Defendants’ opening brief includes a footnote with two sentences stating that Counts

II and III should be dismissed under Tennessee law because the Complaint does not “state

an amount of said suit sought to be recovered.” (Mot. at 4, n.2) Defendants’ reply contains

no explanation as to why this argument was relegated to a footnote in their motion to dismiss

Count VI of the complaint. The Court finds that this footnote is insufficient to present for

determination Defendants’ argument that Counts II and III should be dismissed. See

Henderson v. Petersen, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107936 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2010) (“The bare

assertion of an issue in an opening brief is insufficient to present the matter for

determination.”)

For the reasons discussed above, Defendants’ motion to dismiss [ 09md2087 (Doc.

No. 277); 10cv1240 (Doc. No. 12)] is DENIED. Defendants shall file an answer to the

complaint within fifteen days of entry of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 23, 2011

Honorable Barry Ted Moskowitz

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-01240-BTM-KSC Document 34 Filed 03/23/11 Page 2 of 2