Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-02485/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-02485-1/pdf.json

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

---

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

The instant case was removed from state court on Bem’s First Amended Complaint

(“FAC”). Bem filed the SAC in response to Stryker’s motion to dismiss the FAC.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES BEM,

Plaintiff,

 v.

STRYKER CORPORATION; NORMAN

CHEUNG; SAINT ROSE MEDICAL

BUILDING, INC.; HAYWARD SISTERS

HOSPITAL; ALECTO HEALTHCARE

SERVICES, LLC; and DOES 1 to 100,

inclusive,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 15-2485 MMC

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

DISMISS; DISMISSING COMPLAINT

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

Before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss, filed July 7, 2015, by defendant Stryker

Corporation (“Stryker”), pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

Plaintiff James Bem (“Bem”) has filed opposition, to which Stryker has replied. Having read

and considered the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the motion, the Court

finds the matter appropriate for decision on the parties’ respective written submissions,

VACATES the hearing scheduled for August 14, 2015, and rules as follows.

The operative complaint, Bem’s Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”),1

 is based on

an alleged defect in a hip replacement product manufactured by Stryker. In the SAC, Bem

Case 3:15-cv-02485-MMC Document 20 Filed 07/29/15 Page 1 of 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

2

raises two causes of action, negligence and products liability, and seeks both

compensatory and punitive damages. 

By the instant motion, Stryker seeks dismissal of the above-referenced two causes

of action as well as the prayer for punitive damages, on the ground that the SAC fails to

plead sufficient facts to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and, in no event,

facts sufficient to support an award of punitive damages. The Court, for the reasons set

forth by Stryker, agrees. 

Bem’s First Cause of Action, negligence, is deficient, as Bem relies solely on

conclusory allegations and fails to plead any facts describing the particular defect, the injury

sustained, the manner in which Stryker was negligent, or how any such negligence caused

or contributed in any manner to any specified injury. (See SAC ¶¶ 9, 10 (alleging Stryker

“manufactured, distributed, owned, constructed, designed, assembled, sold, or caused to

be sold” subject product and did so “with no warnings, or inadequate warnings”); id. ¶ 13

(alleging “as a proximate result of the foregoing,” Bem was required to obtain medical

treatment for “injuries”)); see Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (holding complaint

does not suffice “if it tenders ‘naked assertion[s]’ devoid of ‘further factual enhancement’”

(quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 557 (2007)). 

For the same reasons, Bem’s Second Cause of Action, products liability, is deficient. 

(See SAC ¶ 19 (incorporating allegations from First Cause of Action and alleging Stryker,

“from victims, governmental agencies, newspapers, product safety groups, insurance

companies, and others,” was “aware of injuries similar to or the same as those suffered by

[Bem]”); see, e.g., Wendell v. Johnson & Johnson, 2010 WL 271423, *4 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 20,

2010) (dismissing negligence and products liability claims where complaint “simply recite[d]

the elements of each cause of action and repeat[ed] the same failure-to-warn allegations”

without “alleg[ing] how [defendant’s] warnings about [product] were inadequate” or “how

[defendant] was negligent in failing to satisfy any other duty of care”); see also Rhynes v.

Stryker, 2011 WL 2149095 (N.D. Cal. May 31, 2011) (dismissing negligence and products

liability claims where plaintiff failed to plead facts to support allegation she was injured by

Case 3:15-cv-02485-MMC Document 20 Filed 07/29/15 Page 2 of 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

3

prosthesis). 

Lastly, Bem’s prayer for punitive damages is deficient, as Bem has not alleged any

facts to support a finding that Stryker acted with oppression, fraud, or malice, see Cal. Civ.

Code § 3294(a) (providing for award of punitive damages where plaintiff shows “defendant

has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice”), nor has Bem alleged any such conduct

was the “act of” or was done with the “authorization [or] ratification” of an “officer, director,

or managing agent” of Stryker, see Cal. Civ. Code § 3294(b); Alcaraz v. Wachovia Mortg.,

FSB, 2009 WL 160308, at *12, *14 (E.D. Cal. 2009) (holding “section 3294(b) requires

proof of wrongful conduct among corporate leaders”; striking punitive damages allegations

as “at best, conclusory”).

Although, as Stryker points out, the above-noted deficiencies were raised in

Strykers’ motion to dismiss the FAC, the Court will afford Bem one final opportunity to

amend to plead whatever “additional facts” Bem states he can include to “get the pleadings

in order” (see Opp’n at 4:8-9; 5:16-17).

Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, Stryker’s motion to dismiss is hereby

GRANTED, and Bem’s Second Amended Complaint is hereby DISMISSED with leave to

amend to cure the deficiencies identified above. Bem shall file his Third Amended

Complaint no later than August 19, 2015.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 29, 2015 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-02485-MMC Document 20 Filed 07/29/15 Page 3 of 3