This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Torts
Product Liability
Pharmaceutical Personal Injury

Nicole Vieira, Emilia Barozzi v. Mentor Worldwide, LLC; NuSil, LLC; NuSil Technology, LLC; and Does 1-100

Published: Feb. 7, 2020 | Result Date: Aug. 1, 2019 | Filing Date: Jun. 6, 2019 |

Case number: 2:19-cv-04939-AB (PLAx) Bench Decision –  Dismissal

Judge

Andre Birotte Jr.

Court

CD CA


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Jennifer A. Lenze
(Lenze Lawyers PLC)

Amanda D. McGee
(Lenze Lawyers PLC)

Edward E. Angwin
(Angwin Law Firm)

Lowell W. Finson
(Finson Law Firm)


Defendant

Monee T. Hanna
(Nelson Mullins)

Melissa J. Fassett
(Price, Postel & Parma LLP)

Dustin B. Rawlin
(Tucker Ellis LLP)


Facts

Nicole Vieira and Emilia Barozzi filed a lawsuit against Mentor Worldwide over complications they suffered after they were implanted with Mentor's MemoryGel Silicone Breast Implants.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiffs contended that they suffered extreme illness after they were implanted by defendant's breast implants. They contended that their symptoms included joint pain, memory loss, cognitive dysfunction, itching, nausea, dizziness, shortness of breath, and muscle weakness. Plaintiffs contended defendant was strictly liable for their injuries because it manufactured the implants.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant contended it was not liable because plaintiffs' state law tort claims were preempted by the federal Food and Drug Act. Defendant filed a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.

Result

The court granted defendant's Rule 12(b)(6) motion on the grounds that the FDA expressly preempted the state law products liability claim. The court dismissed the case with prejudice, declining to remand or allow leave to amend because the FDA requires manufacturing defect claims to be brought by, and in the name of, the United States.


#133888

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390