## United States Court of App eals

F O R T H E E I G H T H

C I R C U I T

__ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 1- 26 06

__ __ __ __ __ _

Bri an Rid en ou r, *

* App el la nt

, * App eal fro m th e Uni te d S ta te s

* Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r th e

v. * Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta

. *

Bo eh rin ge r In ge lh ei m

Ph arm aceu ti cal s, *

In c., Pfi zer, In c., Ph arm aci a *
Co rp or at io n, an d P ha rm aci a & Up joh n *
Co m pa ny, L LC, *

* App el le es

. *

__ __ __ __ __ _

Su bm it te d: Marc h 1 3, 2 01 2
Fil ed : M ay

31 , 20 12

__ __ __ __ __ _

Befo re MUR PHY an d GRUENDER, Ci rcu it Ju dg es , and ROSS, Dis tri ct Ju dg e. 1

__ __ __ __ __ _
ROSS, Di st ric t J ud ge

.

Bri an Ri de no ur fil ed su it ag ai ns t Bo eh rin ge r In ge lh ei m Ph arm aceu ti cal s, In c.,

Pfi zer, In c., Ph arm aci a Co rp or at io n , a n d Ph arm aci a & Upjo hn Co m pa ny, LLC
( c o l l e ct iv el y , “ BIP” ) al le gi ng to rt cl ai m s ba se d up on BIP’s m ark et in g an d sa le s o f

pr am ip rex ol e, a dr ug co m m on ly pr es cri be d as “ Mi rap ex ”. Ri de no ur t o ok Mi rap ex

The Hon or ab l e Jo hn A. Ro ss , Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e East ern 1 Dis tri ct of M is so ur i, s it ti ng by des ig na ti on

.fro m 20 02 to 20 07 to tre at sym pt om s of Res tl es s Leg Sy nd ro m e. Ri de no ur al le ge s

th at hi s us e of Mi rap e x c a u s ed co m pu ls iv e be ha vi or s, su ch as ga m bl in g an d
hypers ex ua li ty. BIP m ov ed fo r su m m ary jud gm en t, whi ch th e di st ric t co ur t gr an te d. 2

Ri de no ur ap pe al s, an d we a ffi rm

.

I.

In Decem be r 20 02

, whi l e R i d e n ou r was li vi ng in Mar y la nd

, hi s ph y si ci an , Ja m al F. Ali

, M.D., be ga n Ri de no ur on a th erap eu ti c tri al of Mi rap ex

. In m id -2 00 3,

Ri de no ur an d hi s wife m ov ed to Las Ve g a s , Nev ad a. Ri de no ur ’s ne w ph y si ci an , W il li am Gram li ch , M.D., con ti nu ed hi s M ira pe x re gi m en un ti l Oct ob er 2 2, 2 00 7.

Ri de no ur al le ge s th at fro m 20 03 to 20 07

, Mi rap ex c a u se d hi m to en ga ge in

co m pu ls iv e be ha vi or s, in cl ud in g ex ces si ve dr in ki ng , se xu al th ou gh ts an d ga m bl in g.

In Octo be r 20 07

, Ri de no ur sa w a te le vi si on ad ve rti se m en t re g a r d i ng po te nt ia l si de

effe ct s of Mi rap ex

. On Octo be r 22

, 20 07

, Ri de no ur m en ti on ed to Dr. Gram li ch th at

he was ex pe rie nc in g co m pu ls iv e be ha vi or s an d “ th ou gh t” th ey m ig ht be du e to

Mi rap ex

. Dr. Gram li ch ’s of fic e no te fro m th is vi si t st at ed : “ Pat ie nt in fo r fo ll ow- up

. Says he is ha vi ng si de effe ct s fro m Mi rap ex

. All so rts of co m pu ls iv e be ha vi or --No t

at al l cl ear th is is rel at ed

, bu t wil l dc th e Mi rap ex fo r RLS an d swi tc h to req ui p.” Dr.

Gram li ch te st ifi ed th at hi s of fic e no te accu rat el y refl ect ed hi s rea l t im e

co m m un ic at io ns wit h Ri de no ur

. Ri de no ur cl ai m s th at Dr. Gram li ch ad vi se d hi m th at

th ere was no li nk be twee n M ira pe x a nd Rid en ou r’s co m pu ls iv e b eh av io rs

.

In Octo be r or Nov em

be r of 20 09

, Ri de no ur sa w a te le vi si on ad ve rti se m en t by

a pe rs on al in

jury at to rn ey reg ard in g th e co nn ect io n be twee n Mi rap ex an d co m pu ls iv e

The Hon or ab le Mi ch ael J. Dav is

, Ch ie f Ju dg e, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r 2 th e Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta

.

-2

-be ha vi or s. Afte r vi ewin g th is ad ve rti se m en t, Ri de no ur co nt act ed la w fir m s reg ard in g

hi s p ot en ti al cla im

.

On Mar ch 8, 20 10

, Ri de n o u r fil ed a la wsu it in th e East ern Dis tri ct of Tex as

al le gi ng cl ai m s fo r st ric t li ab il it y (d es ig n, m an uf act ur in g, a n d warn in g)

, br each of

ex pr es s an d im

pli ed w ar ra nti es , ne gl ig en ce, ne gl ig en ce pe r se (v io la ti on s of 21 U.S.C.
§§ 33 1, 35 2 an d 21 C.F.R. §§ 20 1.5 6, 20 1.5 7, 20 2.1 ), ne gl ig en t m is rep res en ta ti on , an d

vi ol at io n of th e Tex as Decep ti ve Trad e Pra ct ic e Act , Tex. Bu s. & Co m . C od e Ann

. §§ 17 .01

, et se q

. The act io n was tran sf erre d to th e Dis tri ct of Mi nn es ot a on Apr il 6,

20 10

, as pa rt of th e m

ul ti -d is tri ct li ti ga ti on

. Ri de no ur am e nd ed hi s co m pl ai nt on

Mar ch 2, 20 11

, to el im in at e th e Tex as Decep ti ve Trad e Prac ti ces Act cl ai m an d ad d

cl ai m s fo r vi ol at io ns of th e Mar y l a n d Co ns um er Pro te ct io n Act, Md

. Co de Ann

., Co m

. La w § § 1 3- 10 1, et se q ., an d th e Nev ad a Decep ti ve Trad e Prac ti ces Act,

Nev .Rev .Sta t. § §5 98 .09 03

, et seq

.

BIP m ov ed fo r su m

m ary jud gm en t be fo re Mag is tra te Ju dg e Fran kl in L. Noe l,

as se rti ng th e cl ai m s were ba r r e d b y a two -y ear st at ut e of li m it at io ns fo r pe rs on al

in jury act io ns , Nev .Rev .Sta t. §1 1.1 90 (4 )(e)

. The pa rti es ag reed th at th e ap pl ic ab le 3

st at ut e of li m it at io ns pe rio d fo r al l Ri de no ur ’s cl ai m s, wit h th e ex cep ti on of hi s st ric t

li ab il it y cl ai m , was two y ears

. In hi s Rep or t an d Rec om m en da ti on , Mag is tra te Ju dg e

Noe l reco m

m en de d gr an ti ng BIP’s m ot io n ba se d up on th e two

- y ear st at ut e of

li m it at io ns ba r. In hi s ob jecti on s to th e Rep or t an d Rec om m en da ti on , Ri de no ur

arg ue d, fo r th e fir st ti m e, th at Mag is tra te Ju dg e Noe l “ in co rrec tl y ap pl ie [d ] a two -y ear

li m it at io ns pe rio d to al l of [Ri de no ur ’s] cau se s of act io n , w h i l e cert ai n of th em are

act ua ll y go ve rn ed by ei th er a th ree or fo ur -y ear st at ut e of li m it at io ns .” Ri de no ur al so
ob jecte d th at Mag is tra te Ju dg e Noe l “ erro ne ou sl y ap pl ie d a two -y ear li m it at io ns

pe rio d to [Ri de no ur ’s] de fect iv e ph arm aceu ti cal pr od uc ts li ab il it y cl ai m , de sp it e th e

Nev .Rev .Sta t. §1 1.1 90 (4 )(e) pr ov id es fo r a two -y ear li m it at io ns pe r i o d to 3

br in g “ an act io n to reco ve r da m ag es fo r in juri es t o a p e r so n or fo r th e de at h of a
pe rs on cau se d b y

th e wro ng fu l ac t o r ne gl ect of a no th er.”

-3

-fact th at Nev ad a la w m an da te s a pl ai nt iff be al lo wed fo ur y ears to fil e a la wsu it th at

co nc ern s a d efec ti ve ph arm aceu ti cal pro du ct s l ia bi li ty clai m .”

The di st ric t co ur t ad op te d th e m ag is tra te jud ge ’s Rep or t an d Rec om m en da ti on

an d gr an te d su m

m ary jud gm en t. The di st ric t co ur t he ld th at Ri de no ur co ul d no t rai se

ne w arg um en ts reg ard in g th e lo ng er st at ut es of li m it at io ns fo r th e fir st ti m e in hi s
ob jecti on s an d th ere was no ex cu se fo r th e pr oc ed ur al de fau lt in th is cas e. Mo reo ve r,

th e di st ric t co ur t no te d th at ev en if it were to co ns id er Ri de no ur ’s ne w arg um en ts

, th e

arg um en ts wou ld fai l on th e m eri ts be cau se Nev ad a’s two -y ear st at ut e of li m it at io ns

ap pl ie d. 4

Ri de no ur ap pe al s th e ad ve rs e gr an t of su m m ary jud gm en t an d arg ue s th at th e
di st ric t co ur t’s d eci si on sh ou ld be rev ers ed an d re m an de d.

II.

W e rev ie w a di st ric t co ur t’s gr an t of su m m ary jud gm en t de no vo , vi ewin g th e

ev id en ce in th e li gh t m os t fav o r a b l e to th e no nm ov in g pa rty. Qui nn v. St

. Lou is

Co un ty, 65 3 F.3 d 74 5, 75 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ); Torg ers on v. Ci ty of Ro ch es te r, 64 3 F.3 d

10 31

, 10 42 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ). Su m m ary jud gm en t is pr op er i f th ere are no ge nu in e
is su es of m at eri al fact an d th e m ov in g pa rty is en ti tl ed to jud gm en t as a m at te r of la w. Ry nd ers v. W il li am s, 65 0 F.3 d 11 88

, 11 94 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ); Tay lo r v. St

. Lou is Co un ty

Bd . of El ect io n C om m ’rs, 62 5 F .3d 10 25 , 10 26 (8t h C ir. 2 01 0) (p er cu ria m ).

The di st ric t co ur t al so no te d th at th e pr ecl us iv e eff e c t o f R id en ou r’s 4

ba nk ru pt cy pr oc eed in gs “ li ke ly” wou ld ba r Ri de no ur ’s cl ai m s. Ri de no ur ha d fil ed

a Vol un ta ry Pet it io n fo r Ch ap te r 7 ba nk ru pt cy in th e Uni te d St at es Ban kr up tc y Co ur t fo r th e Dis tri c t o f N e v a d a on Ju ly 1 , 2 00 9. Ri de no ur ’s b an kr up tc y pe ti ti on di d no t

m en ti on an y po te nt ia l cau se s of act io n ag ai ns t BIP a s co nt in ge nt or un li qu id at ed
cl ai m s. Th e b an kr up tc y

co ur t d is ch arg ed Rid en ou r’s de bt on Octo be r 19 , 20 09

.

-4

-In it s m ot io n f o r s um m ary jud gm en t, BIP arg ue d th at Ri de no ur ’s cau se s of

act io n be ga n to accr ue in Octo be r 20 07

, an d th us th e cl ai m s were ba rred by th e two

y ear st at ut e of li mi t a t i o ns

. In res po ns e, Ri de no ur as se rte d th at hi s cau se s of act io n
di d no t be gi n to accr

ue un ti l Octo be r or Nov em be r of 20 09

, whe n he sa w a te le vi si on
ad ve rti se m en t an d re se arch ed hi s cl ai m s.

The pa rti es do no t di sp ut e th at th e la w of Nev ad a ap pl ie s to Ri de no ur ’s cl ai m s,
wit h th e ex cep ti on of hi s c l a i m u n d e r th e Mary land Consum er Protection Act. The

Nev ad a Su pr em e Co ur t ha s he ld th at “ [t]he ge ne ral ru le co nc e r n i n g s ta tu te s of

li m it at io n is th at a cau se of act io n accr ue s whe n th e wro ng oc cu rs an d a pa rty su st ai ns

in juri es fo r whi ch rel ie f co ul d be so ug ht .” Pet ers en v. Brue n, 79 2 P.2 d 18

, 20 (Nev

. 19 90 )(ci ti ng Nels on v. A.H. Rob bi ns Co ., 51 5 F .Su pp . 62 3, 6 25 (N.D. Ca l. 19 81 ));

Bem is v. Es t a t e o f B e m is

, 96 7 P.2 d 43 7, 44 0 (Nev

. 19 98 ). An ex cep ti on to th is

ge ne ral pr op os it io n is th e “ di sc ov ery r u l e , ” whe reb y th e st at ut or y pe rio d of

li m it at io ns is to ll ed un ti l th e in jure d pa rty di sc ov ers or r e a s o n a b l y sh ou ld ha ve
di sc o v e r e d fact s su pp or ti ng a cau se of act io n. Pet ers en ,79 2 P.2 d at 20 (ci ti ng

So ren so n v. Pav li ko wsk i, 58 1 P.2 d 85 1, 85 3- 54 (Nev

. 19 78 )); Bem is

, 96 7 P.2 d at 44 0
(h ol di ng th at th ere was no ev id en ce to su gg es t ap pe ll an ts h a d a ny kn owl ed ge th at

wou ld ha ve pu t th em on “ in qu iry no ti ce” to i n v e s t i g a t e cl ai m s th ey m ay ha ve ha d

ag ai ns t th ei r fat he r pr io r to hi s de at h) ; Mas se y v. Lit to n, 66 9 P.2 d 24 8, 25 1 ( Nev

. 19 83 )(“ Thi s ru le ha s be en cl ari fie d to m ean th at th e st a t u t e o f li m it at io ns be gi ns to

ru n whe n th e [p la in ti ff] ha s be fo re hi m fact s whi ch wou ld pu t a reas on ab le pe rs on on

in qu iry no ti ce o f hi s po ss ib le cau se of a ct io n[ .] ”). “ The foc us is on th e [p la in ti ff’s]

kn owl ed ge of or acce ss to fact s rat he r th an o n h e r di sc ov ery of le ga l th eo rie s.”

Mas se y , 66 9 P.2d at 25 2. “ In a di sc ov ery ba se d cau se of act io n, a pl ai nt iff m us t us e
du e di li ge nc e in de te rm in in g th e ex is te nc e of a cau se of act io n.” Bem is

, 96 7 P.2 d at

44 0 (ci ti ng Si erra Paci fic Po wer Co

. v. Ny e, 38 9 P.2 d 38 7, 39 0 (Nev

. 19 64 )); Mas se y , 66 9 P.2 d at 25 2 (a pl ai nt iff “ di sc ov ers hi s le ga l in jury whe n he kn ows or , th ro ug h th e

us e of reas on ab le di li ge nc e, sh ou ld ha ve kn own of fact s th at wou ld pu t a reas on ab le

pe rs on on in qu iry no ti ce o f hi s ca us e o f act io n” ).

-5

-Ri de no ur all eg es th at he fir st be cam e aware of h is cla im when he vi ewed th e

pe rs on al in

jury at to rn ey ’s te le vi si on ad ve rti se m en t i n O ct ob er or Nov em be r 20 09

. The un di sp ut ed ev id en ce be fo re th e di st ric t co ur t, ho wev er, in di cat es th at Ri de no ur
be cam e aware of fact s su pp or ti ng a cau se of act io n rel at ed to hi s u se of Mi rap ex in

Octo be r 20 07

.

Ri de no ur al le ge s th at he b e g a n ex pe rie nc in g co m pu ls iv e be ha vi or s in 20 03

. So m et im e in Octo be r 20 07 , Rid en ou r cl ai m s th at he sa w a te le vi si on ad ve rti se m en t

no ti ng a po ss ib le li nk be twee n Mi rap ex an d co m pu ls iv e be ha vi or s. Afte r se ei ng th e
ad ve rti se m en t, Ri de no ur to ld Dr. Gram li ch he was ex pe rie nc i n g c om pu ls iv e
be ha vi or s an d “ th ou gh t” th ey m ig ht be du e t o M i rap ex

. Dr. Gram li ch or de red

Ri de no ur to di sc on ti nu e h is us e o f Mi rap ex

.

The se fact s sh ou ld ha ve pu t Ri de no ur on in qu iry no ti ce th at he ha d a po ss ib le

cau se of a ct io n rela te d to hi s us e of Mi rap ex in Octo be r 20 07 . Mas se y , 66 9 P .2d at

25 1- 52

. Alt ho ug h Ri de no ur cl ai m s th at he di d n o t u n d e r s ta nd th e si gn ifi can ce of

th es e fact s, he cl earl y was co gn iz a n t e n o u g h to as k hi s ph y si ci an ab ou t a po ss ib le

rel at io ns hi p be twee n M i r ap ex an d hi s co m pu ls iv e be ha vi or s. Giv en th e fact s of

whi ch Ri de no ur was aware , he ha d a du ty un de r Nev ad a la w to i n v e s t i g at e hi s

po te nt ia l cl ai m s. A reas on ab le in qu iry by Ri de no ur in la te 20 07 wou ld ha ve res ul te d

in h i m le arn in g of a bo dy of sc ie nt ifi c res earc h reg ard in g a po te nt ia l li nk be twee n

Mi rap ex an d co m

pu ls iv e be ha vi or s, as well as a si gn ifi can t nu m be r o f l a w s u i ts

r e g a r di ng th e sa m e. Thu s, th e di st ric t co ur t co rrec tl y de te rm in ed th at Ri de n o u r ’s

cl ai m s accr ue d as of Octo be r 20 07 , a nd th us th e st at ut e of li m it at io ns pe rio d be ga n

to run at t ha t t im e.

-6

-W e ne xt tu rn to Ri de no ur ’s cl ai m th at se ve ral of hi s cl ai m s are go ve rn ed by a

st at ut e of li m it at io ns pe rio d in ex ces s of two y ears

. W it h th e ex cep ti on of th e st ric t 5

li ab il it y cl ai m , t he Co ur t do es no t n eed to ad dr es s Ri de no ur ’s a rg um en t th at lo ng er

st at ut e of li m it at io ns p e r i o ds ap pl y be cau se he waiv ed th is arg um en t on two

oc cas io ns

.

As pr ev io us ly di sc us se d, Ri de no ur av erre d be fo re th e m ag is tra te jud ge th at th e

two -y ear st at ut e of li m it at io ns ap pl ie d to each of hi s cl ai m s, ex cep t th e st ric t li ab il it y
cl ai m

. In hi s ob

jecti on s t o t h e m ag is tra te jud ge ’s Rep or t an d Rec om m en da ti on , ho wev er, Ri de no ur arg ue d th at lo ng er st at u t e o f li m it at io ns pe rio ds ap pl ie d to

“ cert ai n” of hi s cl ai m s. W e ho ld th at Ri de no ur waiv ed hi s rig ht to arg ue th at a lo ng er

st at ut e of li m it at io ns pe rio d ap pl ie d to hi s cl ai m s whe n he di d no t rai se th is arg um en t

be fo re t he m ag is tra te jud ge

.

Ri de no ur was req ui red to pr es en t al l of hi s arg um en ts to th e m ag is tra te jud ge , le st th ey be waiv ed

. W he n a m ag is tra te jud ge is he ari ng a m at te r pu rs ua nt to hi s o r
he r li m it ed au th or it y to m ak e a reco m m en de d di sp os it io n, “ ‘a cl ai m an t m us t pr es en t

al l hi s clai m s sq ua rel y to th e m ag is tra te jud ge , th at is

, th e fir st ad ve rs ari al fo ru m , to

pr es erv e th em fo r rev ie w.’ ” Mad ol v. Dan Nels on Aut o. Gro up , 37 2 F.3 d 99 7, 10 00
(8 th Ci r. 20 04 )( q u o t i ng Ro be rts v. Apf el

, 22 2 F.3 d 46 6, 47 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 00 ));

Ham m an n v. 1- 80 0 Id eas .co m , In c., 45 5 F. Su pp

. 2d 94 2, 94 7- 48 (D. Mi nn

. 20 06 )(“ A

pa rty can no t, in hi s o b

je c t i on s to an R&R

, rai se arg um en ts th at were no t cl earl y

S p e c i f ic al ly, Ri de no ur as se rts in hi s br ie f th at vi ol at io ns of th e Nev a d a 5 Decep ti ve Trad e Prac ti ces Act are go ve rn ed by a fo ur -y ear li m it at io ns pe rio d un de r Nev .Rev .Sta t. §1 1.1 90 (2 )(d ); th at UCC ex pr es s an d im pl ie d w a r r a n t y cl ai m s are
go ve rn ed by a fo ur -y ear li m it at io ns pe rio d un de r Nev .Rev .Sta t. §1 1.2 20 ; th at

ne gl ig en ce pe r se cl ai m s ( p u r s u a nt to vi ol at io ns of 21 U.S.C. §§ 33 1, 35 2 an d
vi ol at io ns o f 2 1 C

. F.R. §§ 20 1.5 6, 20 1.5 7 an d 20 2.1 ) are li m it ed by a th ree- y ear li m it at io ns pe rio d un de r Nev .Rev .Sta t. §1 1.1 90 (3 )(a) ; an d th at vi ol at io ns o f th e Mar y la nd Co ns um er Pro te ct io n Act are g ov ern ed by a th ree y ear li m it at io ns pe rio d

un de r Md . Cod e Ann ., Cts . & Ju d. Pr oc ., §5 -1 01

.

-7

-pr es en te d to th e m ag is tra te jud ge .”). W e ha ve he ld th at th e “ ‘pu r p o s e o f refe rri ng

cas es to a m ag is tra te f

o r r e c om m en de d di sp os it io n wou ld be co nt rav en ed if pa rti es

were al lo wed to pr es en t on ly se le ct ed is su es to th e m ag i s t r a t e , res erv in g th ei r fu ll

pa no pl y of co nt en ti on s fo r th e tri al co ur t.’” Ro be rts

, 22 2 F.3 d at 47 0 (q uo ti ng

Rec ip ro cal Exc h. v. Nol an d, 54 2 F.2 d 46 2, 46 4 (8 th Ci r. 19 76 )); Bo rd en v. Secr et ary

of Heal th & Hum an Serv ic es , 83 6 F.2 d 4, 6 (1 st Ci r. 19 87 )(Gi ve n th at th e pu rp os e of

th e Fed eral Mag is tra te Act is to rel ie ve t he co ur ts of un ne ces sa ry wor k, it “ wou ld

de feat th is pu rp os e if th e di st ric t co ur t w a s req ui red to he ar m at te rs an ew on is su es

ne ve r pr es en te d to th e m ag is tra te .”). Ju st as pa rti es can no t pr es en t arg um en ts to th e

ap pe ll at e co ur t th at th ey di d no t rai se be fo re to th e di st ric t co ur t, “ [p ]arti es m us t ta ke

be fo re th e m ag is tra te

, ‘not on ly th ei r “ be st sh ot ” bu t al l of th ei r sh ot s.’” Bo rd en , 83 6

F.2 d at 6 (q uo ti ng Si ng h v. Su p e r i n t e n di ng Sch oo l Co m m it te e, 59 3 F. Su pp

. 13 15

, 13 1 8 ( D

. Me. 19 84 )). The di st ric t co ur t pr op erl y refu se d to co ns id er Ri de no ur ’s

arg um en t th at lo ng er st at ut e of li m it at io ns pe rio ds ap pl ie d to hi s cl ai m s be cau se th is

arg um en t was no t p res en te d fi rs t t o t he m ag is tra te jud ge

.

Ri de no ur ag ai n waiv ed hi s st at ut e of li m it at io ns arg um en t whe n he fai le d to

ap pe al th e di st ric t co ur t’s waiv er ru li ng

. Here, Ri de no ur ap pe al s th e di st ric t co ur t’s

de ci si on to ap pl y a two -y ear li m it at io ns pe rio d to ev ery cau se of act io n. Ri de no ur , ho wev er, do es no t ap pe a l th e di st ric t co ur t’s ex pl ic it fin di ng th at he waiv ed th e

st at ut e of li m it at io ns arg um en t by no t rai si ng it b efo re th e m ag is tra te jud ge

. Ri de no ur , th eref

or e, can no t arg ue th at lo ng er st at ut es of li m it at io ns pe rio ds sh ou ld

ap pl y be cau se he di d no t ap pe al th e di st ric t co ur t’s de te rm in at io n th at he waiv ed th is

a r g u m en t. Bl ak le y v. Sch lu m be rg er Tech

. Co rp ., 64 8 F.3 d 92 1, 93 1 (8 t h C i r

. 20 11 )(ap pe ll an t di d no t ch al le ng e th e d is tri ct co ur t’s co nc lu si on th at sh e fai le d to

ex ha us t he r ad m in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s b y no t ch eck in g th e bo xe s fo r “ se x” an d

“ di sa bi li ty” and , as a res ul t, s he waiv ed an y ch al le ng e o n t ha t b as is ).

Acco rd in gl y , we ne ed no t ad dr e ss Ri de no ur ’s a rg um en t th at hi s cl ai m s, wit h

th e ex cep ti on of th e st ric t li ab il it y cl ai m , are go ve rn ed by lo ng er st at ut e of li m it at io ns

-8

-pe rio ds

. Ri de n o u r ha s waiv ed an y arg um en t th at th e lo ng er st at ut e of li m it at io ns

pe rio ds ap pl y be cau se he di d no t rai se th is is su e be fo re th e m ag is tra te jud ge an d di d

no t ap pe al th e di st ric t co ur t’s de te rm in at io n th at he ha d waiv ed hi s rig ht to as se rt th e
lo ng er s ta tu te of l im it at io ns pe rio ds

.

Bec au se hi s clai m s accru ed as of Octo be r 20 07 an d he di d no t fil e th is act io n

un ti l Mar ch 20 10 , R id en ou r’s cl ai m s fo r br each of ex pr es s an d im pl ie d w a r r a nt ie s,

ne gl ig en ce, ne gl ig en ce pe r s e , n e gl ig en t m is rep res en ta ti on , an d vi ol at io n of th e

Mar y la nd an d Nev ad a co ns um er pr ot ect io n st at ut es were un ti m el y

. On th is ba si s, we

affi rm th e d is tri ct co ur t’s g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t o n t he se cla im s.

The on ly is su e rem ai ni ng be fo re us is th e a p p li cab le st at ut e of li m it at io ns

pe rio d fo r Ri de no ur ’s st ric t li ab il it y cl ai m

. The di st ric t co ur t he ld th at Ri de no ur ’s

st ric t li ab il it y cl ai m was ba rred by Nev ad a’s two

- ye a r s t a t ut e of li m it at io ns fo r

pe rs on al in

juri es

. See Nev

. Rev

. St at

. § 11 .19 0( 4) (e). Ri de no ur arg ue s th at Nev ad a’s

cat ch al l sta tu te of li m it at io ns ap pl ie s. See Nev. Re v. St at . § 11 .22 0 (“ An acti on fo r

r e l ie f, no t he rei nb efo re pr ov id ed fo r, m us t be co m

m en ced wit hi n 4 y ears aft er t h e

cau se of act io n sh al l ha ve accr ue d.” ). W e ag ree wit h th e fin di ng of th e di st ric t co ur t.

In Cam po s v. New Dire ct io n Equ ip m en t Co

., In c., th e Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct

Co ur t of Nev ad a he ld th at th e two -y ear s ta tu te of l im it at io ns ap pl ie s to al l pe rs on al

in jury act io ns , in cl ud in g st ric t li ab il it y act io ns

. No. 2: 08 cv 28 6- LRH-RJ J, 20 09 U.S.

Dis t. LEXIS 70 86

, *7 -8 (D. Nev

. Ja n

. 1 6

, 2 0 09 )(ap pl y in g Nev

. Rev

. St at

. §

11 .19 0( 4) (e) to a st ric t li ab il it y act io n)

. The Cam po s co ur t he ld th at al th ou gh a st ric t

li ab il it y act io n do es no t req ui re th e “ sc ie nt er” el em e n t co m m on in m an y pe rs on al

l i a b i li ty act io ns , it rem ai ns an act io n so un di ng in “ to rt” an d, “ by de fin it io n an d i t s

ve ry na tu re, is a wro ng fu l act io n.” Id

., at *7

. The Nev ad a di st ric t co ur t no te d th at a

st ric t pr od uc ts li ab il it y act io n “ is es se nt ia ll y a reco gn it io n th at

, no twi th st a n di ng a
de fen da nt ’s cu lp ab il it y , th e act of pu tt in g an un reas on ab ly da ng ero us pr od uc t on th e

m ark et is an il l, o r wro ng , for whi ch so ci et y wil l re qu ire red res s.” Id ., at * 8.

-9

-Ri de no ur refe rs us to Fi sh er v. Pro fes si on al Co m po un di ng Ct rs

. of Am

., In c.,

31 1 F. Su pp

. 2d 10 08 (D. Nev

. 20 04 ), whi ch in vo lv ed a st ric t li ab il it y cl ai m ag ai ns t

th e m ak ers o f f

e n /p he n. The re, th e Nev ad a di st ric t co ur t ap pl ie d th e Nev ad a fo ur

y ear “ cat ch al l” st at ut e of li m it at io ns to a pr od uc t li ab il it y cas e. Id

. at 10 17 (ci ti ng

Nev .Rev .Sta t §1 1.2 20 ). Unl ik e in Cam po s, ho wev er, th e Fi sh er co ur t di d no t pr ov id e

an y di sc us si on or an al y si s reg ard in g it s ap pl ic at io n of th e “ cat ch al l” pr ov is io n, rat he r

th an th e two -y ear st at ut e of li m it at io ns pe rio d fo r pe rs on al in jury act io ns

. In ad di ti on ,

an d as no te d in Cam

po s, th e pr on ou nc em en t in Fi sh er on th is is su e is no t pe rs ua si ve
be cau se it was no t th e di st ric t co ur t’s ho ld in g. In Fi sh er, th e pl ai nt iff le arn ed of he r

in jury on ly two m on th s be fo re fil in g su it an d, acco rd in gl y , he r cl ai m wou ld no t ha ve
be en ba rred un de r an y o f t h e p ot en ti al ly ap pl ic ab le st at ut es of li m it at io ns

. See

Cam po s, 20 09 U.S. Dis t. LEXIS 70 86

, at *6 (“ whe th er th e st at ut e of li m it at io ns was

fo ur y ears (o r ev en on e y ear) was no t ne c e s s a r y t o th e [Fi sh er] co ur t’s de ni al of

su m m ary jud gm en t.”)

.

Bas ed up on th e well -rea so ne d de ci si on in Cam po s, we ho ld th at Nev ad a’s two

y ear pe rs on al in

jury st at ut e of li m it at io ns pe rio d ap pl ie s to Ri de no ur ’s st ric t li ab il it y
cl ai m

. The di st ric t co ur t pr op erl y co nc lu de d th at Ri de no ur ’s st ric t li ab il it y cl ai m was
ba rred by the two -y ear s ta tu te of l im it at io ns , as i t ac cru ed in Octo be r 20 07

.

III.

W e co nc lu de th at th e d is tri ct co ur t p ro pe rly gran te d s um m ary jud gm en t t o

BIP. Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm th e jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

-1 0-