21 Cited authorities

Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (2009) Cited 267,813 times 281 Legal Analyses
Holding court need not credit "mere conclusory statements" in complaint
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (2007) Cited 280,791 times 369 Legal Analyses
Holding that allegations of conduct that are merely consistent with wrongdoing do not state a claim unless "placed in a context that raises a suggestion of" such wrongdoing
Cuvillier v. Taylor
503 F.3d 397 (5th Cir. 2007) Cited 1,490 times
Holding that "to survive a Rule 12(b) motion to dismiss, a complaint 'does not need detailed factual allegations,' but must provide the plaintiff's grounds for entitlement to relief-including factual allegations that when assumed to be true 'raise a right to relief above the speculative level.'" (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555)
Stahl v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp.
283 F.3d 254 (5th Cir. 2002) Cited 668 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that an inadequate warning plaintiff must "go beyond the pleadings and designate specific facts in the record showing that there is a genuine issue for trial to defeat summary judgment"
Tel-Phonic Services, Inc. v. TBS Intern
975 F.2d 1134 (5th Cir. 1992) Cited 562 times
Holding that an out-of-circuit pre-transfer decision dismissing some of the claims against the defendants is appealable to this Court after a district court in this circuit enters final judgment on the remaining claims
Bass v. Stryker Corp.
669 F.3d 501 (5th Cir. 2012) Cited 244 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that an entire device, including its component parts, satisfied the first step of Riegel when the FDA reviewed those components during the PMA process
Jefferson v. Lead Industries Ass'n, Inc.
106 F.3d 1245 (5th Cir. 1997) Cited 285 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that a plaintiff cannot recover from a manufacturer for damage caused by a product on the basis of any theory of liability not set forth in the LPLA
Shushany v. Allwaste, Inc.
992 F.2d 517 (5th Cir. 1993) Cited 239 times
Holding a dismissal for failing to state fraud with sufficient particularity under Rule 9(b) is a dismissal on the pleadings for failure to state a claim and, as such, all well-pleaded factual allegations in the complaint should be accepted as true
Willett v. Baxter Intern., Inc.
929 F.2d 1094 (5th Cir. 1991) Cited 107 times
Holding that the defendant was entitled to summary judgment because the plaintiff failed to produce specific evidence demonstrating that her doctor would have changed his behavior had he been aware of slight increase in the risk of a certain side effect
Flagg v. Stryker Corp.
647 F. App'x 314 (5th Cir. 2016) Cited 43 times
Holding that the plaintiff sufficiently pleaded a manufacturing defect by alleging "precisely how the product failed and how that failure caused [the plaintiff's] injury"
Rule 12 - Defenses and Objections: When and How Presented; Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Consolidating Motions; Waiving Defenses; Pretrial Hearing
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 Cited 362,607 times 962 Legal Analyses
Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss
Rule 8 - General Rules of Pleading
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 Cited 164,455 times 197 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."
Rule 9 - Pleading Special Matters
Fed. R. Civ. P. 9 Cited 40,207 times 337 Legal Analyses
Requiring that fraud be pleaded with particularity

Bales v. Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals LP et al

21 Cited authorities

Holding court need not credit "mere conclusory statements" in complaint

Holding that allegations of conduct that are merely consistent with wrongdoing do not state a claim unless "placed in a context that raises a suggestion of" such wrongdoing

Holding that an inadequate warning plaintiff must "go beyond the pleadings and designate specific facts in the record showing that there is a genuine issue for trial to defeat summary judgment"

Holding that an out-of-circuit pre-transfer decision dismissing some of the claims against the defendants is appealable to this Court after a district court in this circuit enters final judgment on the remaining claims

Holding that an entire device, including its component parts, satisfied the first step of Riegel when the FDA reviewed those components during the PMA process

Holding that a plaintiff cannot recover from a manufacturer for damage caused by a product on the basis of any theory of liability not set forth in the LPLA

Holding a dismissal for failing to state fraud with sufficient particularity under Rule 9(b) is a dismissal on the pleadings for failure to state a claim and, as such, all well-pleaded factual allegations in the complaint should be accepted as true

Holding that the defendant was entitled to summary judgment because the plaintiff failed to produce specific evidence demonstrating that her doctor would have changed his behavior had he been aware of slight increase in the risk of a certain side effect

Holding that the plaintiff sufficiently pleaded a manufacturing defect by alleging "precisely how the product failed and how that failure caused [the plaintiff's] injury"

Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss

Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."

Requiring that fraud be pleaded with particularity