Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03213/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03213-0/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

---

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 THE 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS 

[Re: ECF No. 16] 

INTRODUCTION 

The plaintiff Stephen Money filed this action in state court against three defendants: (1) 

Johnson & Johnson; (2) Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc.; and (3) Luxottica Retail North 

America Inc., which does business as “LensCrafters.” (Complaint, ECF No. 1-2 at 4-8.1

) After 

removing the case to this court, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss Mr. Money’s complaint. 

(Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 16.) Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the court finds this matter 

to be suitable for determination without oral argument and vacates the September 10, 2015 

hearing. The court grants the defendants’ motion and dismisses Mr. Money’s claims without 

prejudice. Mr. Money may file a first amended complaint by September 30, 2015. 

 

1

 Record citations are to documents in the Electronic Case File (“ECF”); pinpoint citations are to 

the ECF-generated page numbers at the top of the documents. 

Case 3:15-cv-03213-LB Document 22 Filed 09/08/15 Page 1 of 4
2 

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 

STATEMENT 

On April 21, 2014, Mr. Money sued the defendants in San Francisco Superior Court for an 

injury caused by a defective contact lens. (See generally Complaint, ECF No. 1-2 at 4-8.) In a 

form complaint that allowed Mr. Money to check various boxes to set forth the basis for the 

defendants’ liability, Mr. Money alleges the following: 

 He purchased and used Acuvue contact lens. 

 He was injured by the Acuvue contact lenses on May 3, 2013. 

 “Johnson & Johnson, Inc.” manufactured or assembled the Acuvue contact lenses, 

“Johnson & Johnson, Inc.” designed and manufactured component parts supplied to the 

manufacturer of the Acuvue contact lenses, and all three of the defendants sold the Acuvue 

contact lenses to the public. 

 Each of the defendants knew the Acuvue contact lenses would be purchased and used 

without inspection for defects. 

 The Acuvue contact lenses were defective when they left the control of each defendants. 

 The Acuvue contact lenses were being used in the manner intended by the defendants and 

in a manner that was reasonably foreseeable by the defendants as involving a substantial 

danger not readily apparent, and adequate warnings of the danger were not given. 

 He suffered wage loss, loss of use of property, hospital and medical expenses, general 

damage, property damage, and loss of earning capacity, and he seeks unspecified 

compensatory damages according to proof. 

(Id. at 4, 6-7.) Based on these allegations, Mr. Money brings against all three of the defendants 

claims for strict products liability, negligence, and breach of implied warranty. (Id. at 7.) 

The defendants removed the case from state court on July 10, 2015. (Notice of Removal, ECF 

No. 1.) On July 31, 2015, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss Mr. Money’s complaint under 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 12(b)(6). (Motion, ECF No.16.) Mr. Money filed an 

opposition on August 14, 2015, and the defendants filed a reply on August 21, 2015. (Opposition, 

ECF 20; Reply, ECF 21.) 

 

Case 3:15-cv-03213-LB Document 22 Filed 09/08/15 Page 2 of 4
3 

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 

ANALYSIS 

I. LEGAL STANDARD 

Rule 8(a) requires that a complaint contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing 

that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). A complaint must therefore provide a 

defendant with “fair notice” of the claims against it and the grounds for relief. See Bell Atlantic 

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quotation and citation omitted). 

A court may dismiss a complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) when it does 

not contain enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. See Twombly, 550 

U.S. at 570. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows 

the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” 

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). “The plausibility standard is not akin to a 

‘probability requirement,’ but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted 

unlawfully.” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557). “While 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 ‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and 

a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. Factual allegations must be 

enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (internal 

citations and parentheticals omitted). 

In considering a motion to dismiss, a court must accept all of the plaintiff’s allegations as true 

and construe them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See id. at 550; Erickson v. Pardus, 

551 U.S. 89, 93-94 (2007); Vasquez v. Los Angeles County, 487 F.3d 1246, 1249 (9th Cir. 2007). 

In addition, courts may consider documents attached to the complaint. Parks School of Business, 

Inc. v. Symington, 51 F.3d 1480, 1484 (9th Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). If the court dismisses the 

complaint, it should grant leave to amend even if no request to amend is made “unless it 

determines that the pleading could not possibly be cured by the allegation of other facts.” Lopez v. 

Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting Cook, Perkiss and Liehe, Inc. v. Northern 

California Collection Serv. Inc., 911 F.2d 242, 247 (9th Cir. 1990)). 

Case 3:15-cv-03213-LB Document 22 Filed 09/08/15 Page 3 of 4
4 

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 

II. MR. MONEY’S ALLEGATIONS ARE NOT SUFFICIENT

The defendants contend that Mr. Money’s allegations do not establish plausible claims for 

relief. The court agrees. 

The defendants argue that Mr. Money’s allegations do not meet the federal pleading standards 

because he “alleges no facts other than the name of the product and the date of his alleged injury.” 

(Motion, ECF No. 16 at 4.) They point out that he “does not, for example, allege facts that, if true, 

would show a defect in his Acuvue contact lenses, the nature and extent of [his] injuries, how [the 

d]efendants’ conduct or product caused his injuries, or any warranties [they] made about the 

contact lenses.” (Id.) In response, Mr. Money acknowledges that his allegations are few, but he 

contends that they are sufficient under the Federal Rules’ notice pleading requirement. 

While it is true that notice pleading is the standard, and a plaintiff need not plead his evidence, 

it also is clear that he must do more than simply state the elements of the claims he brings. That is 

all he did for the products liability claim, and he did not do that for his negligence and breach of 

implied warranty claims (presumably because the form complaint did not include boxes for them). 

The court of course acknowledges that the form complaint Mr. Money used is not designed for 

federal court, and so he cannot be faulted for conforming his allegations to the pleading standards 

for a court that he did not file in. But the action is in federal court now, and his allegations are not 

sufficient. The court thus grants the defendants’ motion. Because Mr. Money may be able to allege 

additional facts to support his claim, the court dismisses his claims without prejudice. 

CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, the court grants the defendants’ motion. Mr. Money's claims are 

dismissed without prejudice. Mr. Money may file a first amended complaint by September 30, 

2015. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: September 8, 2015 

______________________________________ 

LAUREL BEELER 

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 3:15-cv-03213-LB Document 22 Filed 09/08/15 Page 4 of 4