N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNIT E D ST AT E S CO URT O F APPE AL S FO R T H E NINT H CIRCUIT
E UG E NE A. DE B O NS, on be half of him se lf and all othe r s sim ilar ly situate d,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. G L O B US M E DICAL , INC.,

De fe nda nt-Appe l le e . No. 14-56455 D.C . No. 2:13-c v-08518-SVW -FFM
M E M O RANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Ste phe n V. W ilson, District Judge , Pre s iding Argue d and Submitte d August 5, 2016 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : K O Z INSKI and W ARDL AW , C irc uit Judge s, a n d B E NCIV E NG O , ** Distric t Judge
.

____________________ * This disposition is not a ppropria t e for public ation a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3. ** TheHonora

ble C athy Ann B e nc ive ngo, Unite d State s Distric t Judgefor the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia , sitting by de s igna tion. 

# FIL ED

AUG 16 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S

. CO URT O F APPEALSPag e 2

Euge ne De B ons a

ppe a ls from

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt dismissing his puta tive c la ss a c tion a lle ging va rious c la im s unde r C a lifornia sta tutory , tort, a

nd
c ontra c t la

w . W e have jurisdic tion under 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie w the dismissa l de novo, Lilly

v . C onAgra Foods, Inc

. , 743 F.3d 662, 664 (9th C ir. 2014),
and we a ffirm
. The Fe de ra l Food, Drug, a nd C osm e tic Ac t (“ FDC A” ) “ l e ave s no doubt tha t it is theFe de ra l Gove rnm e nt rathe r tha n priva te litiga nts who [is] a

uthoriz e d to file suit for nonc om

plia nc e with them e dic a l de vic e provisions.” Buc k man C o . v . Plaintiffs’ Le

g al C omm. , 531 U.S. 341, 349 n.4 (2001) (c iting 21 U.S.C . § 337(a)). B a se d on this la

ngua ge , we have he ld tha t the re is a

“ na rrow ga p through whic h a sta te -law c la im

m u s t fit to e sc a

pe pre e m ption by the FDC A: The pla intiff m ust be suing for c o nduc t tha

t v iolate s the FDC A (or e lse his c la im is e xpre ssly pre e m

pte d by [21 U.S.C . § 360k(a)] ), but thepla intiff m ust not besuing be c ausethe c onduc t viola te s the FDC A (suc h

a c la im would beim

plie dly pre e m

pte d unde r Buc k

man ).” Pe re z v . N ide k C o., Ltd., 711 F.3d 1109, 1120 (9th C ir. 2013) (c i tation omitte d). W ith the e xc e ption of De B ons’ s bre a c h of c ontra c t c la im , the distric t c ourt
c orre c tly de te rm ine d tha

t De B ons’ s c la im s do not fit through this ga p and a re the re fore pre e m

pte d. The distric t c ourt e rre d in dismissing De B ons’ s bre a c h of c ontra c t c la im onPag e 3

pre e m ption grounds to the

e xte nt tha

t c la im is pre m ise d on a

n e xpre s s c ontra c tua l
re pre se ntation by

Globus tha

t NuB one wa s “ FDA a

pprove d” or ha d be e n de te rm i ne d to be“ sa fe an d e ffe c tive .” The M DA’ s pre e m p tion c l a use doe s not she l te r a m anufa c t ure r “ from

suits alle ging no viola

tion of sta te -im pose d obliga tions, but se e k ing re c ove ry sole ly for the [m a

nufa c ture r’ s] a lle ge d bre a c h of its own, se lf-im

pose d unde rtakings.” Am. Airline s, Inc . v . W

ole ns , 513 U.S. 219, 228 (1995); se ealso Murphy v . Dire c TV, Inc
. , 724 F.3d 1218, 1227 (9th C i r. 2013) (“ [C ] ontra c ting pa

rtie s c an e nforc e the substa ntive te rm s of a

priva t e a g re e m e nt
e ve n if the y

e xc e e d the re quire m e nts of fe de ra l la w” ). To thee xte nt De B ons
a lle ge s only

a bre a c h of Globus’ s own, se lf-im pose d unde rtak ing, a

nd not a sta te
re quire m e nt, his c la im

is not pre e m

pte d. Ne ve rthe le s s, “ we c an

a ffirm on a ny ground supporte d by

the re c ord.” Thompson v . Paul , 547 F.3d 1055, 1058–59 (9th Cir. 2008). Thedistric t c o urt dismisse d De B ons’ s c ontra c t c l a im s in his first a m e nde d c om pla int for fa ilure to
a lle ge any fa c t s supporting the

e xiste nc e of a

c ontra c t be twe e n De B ons a nd Globus, or a

c ontra c t be t

we e n Globus a n d the hospital to whic h De B ons wa s a third-pa rty be ne fic ia ry . The ope rative third a

m e nde d c o m

pla int fa ile d to re m e dy the s e de fic ie nc ie s. Furthe r, at ora l a rgum e nt, c ounse l for De B ons a c knowle dge d that De B o ns ha s no knowle dge of the e x iste nc e of suc h a c ontra c t, but ra t he r hope dPag e 4

to unc ove r suc h a

c ontra c t during disc ove ry . B e c a

u se De B ons ha d four opportunitie s to a lle ge a via ble c ontra c t c la i m

and c ould not do so, a

l lowing De B ons furthe r opportunity to a m e nd his c om

pla int would be

futile . Ac c ordingly , the d istric t c o urt’ s dismissa l of thebre a c h of c ontra c t c la im is a ffirm e d on the ground tha

t the third a

m e nde d c om

pla int doe s not a lle ge fa c ts suffic ie nt to sta te a
c la im . Fe d. R . C iv. P. 12(b)(6). Fina lly , the distric t c ourt prope rly dismisse d De B o ns’ s ne glige nc e pe r se
c la im on thegrounds tha

t ne glige nc e pe r se is not a re c ogniz e d indepe nde nt c la im unde r C a lifornia

la w. Se eQuiroz v . Se v e n th Av e . C tr. , 140 C a l. App. 4 t h1256, 1285 (C a l. C t. App. 2006) (“ [T] o a p ply ne glige nc e pe r se is not to sta t e an indepe nde nt c a

use of a c t ion. Thedoc trine doe s not provide a priva te right of
a c tion for viola

tion of a sta tute .” ). AFFIRM E D
.