63 Cited authorities

  1. Ashcroft v. Iqbal

    556 U.S. 662 (2009)   Cited 251,689 times   279 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a claim is plausible where a plaintiff's allegations enable the court to draw a "reasonable inference" the defendant is liable
  2. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly

    550 U.S. 544 (2007)   Cited 265,662 times   364 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a complaint's allegations should "contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face' "
  3. Daimler AG v. Bauman

    571 U.S. 117 (2014)   Cited 5,588 times   236 Legal Analyses
    Holding that foreign corporations may not be subject to general jurisdiction "whenever they have an in-state subsidiary or affiliate"
  4. Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr

    518 U.S. 470 (1996)   Cited 2,412 times   35 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the presence of a state-law damages remedy for violations of FDA requirements does not impose an additional requirement upon medical device manufacturers but "merely provides another reason for manufacturers to comply with . . . federal law"
  5. Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc.

    552 U.S. 312 (2008)   Cited 1,030 times   62 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a State’s “‘requirements’” “includ[e] [the state’s] common-law duties”
  6. Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs' Legal Committee

    531 U.S. 341 (2001)   Cited 1,181 times   80 Legal Analyses
    Holding that federal drug and medical device laws pre-empted a state tort-law claim based on failure to properly communicate with the FDA
  7. Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors

    266 F.3d 979 (9th Cir. 2001)   Cited 5,048 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that unwarranted inferences are insufficient to defeat a motion to dismiss
  8. Kearns v. Ford Motor Co.

    567 F.3d 1120 (9th Cir. 2009)   Cited 2,247 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that circumstances constituting fraud must be stated with particularity
  9. Norgart v. Upjohn Co.

    21 Cal.4th 383 (Cal. 1999)   Cited 1,294 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the discovery rule "postpones accrual of a cause of action until the plaintiff discovers, or has reason to discover, the cause of action, until, that is, he at least suspects, or has reason to suspect, a factual basis for its elements"
  10. Clemens v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.

    530 F.3d 852 (9th Cir. 2008)   Cited 910 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "claims under the Magnuson–Moss Act stand or fall with express and implied warranty claims under state law"
  11. 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 344,767 times   920 Legal Analyses
    Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss
  12. Rule 8 - General Rules of Pleading

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 8   Cited 155,637 times   193 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."
  13. Rule 9 - Pleading Special Matters

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 9   Cited 38,845 times   316 Legal Analyses
    Permitting "[m]alice, intent, knowledge, and other conditions of a person's mind [to] be alleged generally"
  14. Section 335.1 - Assault, battery or injury or death caused by wrongful act or negligence

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 335.1   Cited 2,283 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Imposing two-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims
  15. Section 360k - State and local requirements respecting devices

    21 U.S.C. § 360k   Cited 1,025 times   21 Legal Analyses
    Authorizing the FDA to determine the scope of the Medical Devices Amendments' pre-emption clause
  16. Section 360c - Classification of devices intended for human use

    21 U.S.C. § 360c   Cited 787 times   22 Legal Analyses
    Instructing FDA to determine the safety and effectiveness of a "device" in part by weighing " any probable benefit to health . . . against any probable risk of injury or illness . . ."
  17. Section 337 - Proceedings in name of United States; provision as to subpoenas

    21 U.S.C. § 337   Cited 666 times   19 Legal Analyses
    Restricting FDCA enforcement to suits by the United States
  18. Section 360e - Premarket approval

    21 U.S.C. § 360e   Cited 494 times   17 Legal Analyses
    Granting FDA authority to conduct hearings regarding PMA withdrawal
  19. Section 333 - Penalties

    21 U.S.C. § 333   Cited 436 times   39 Legal Analyses
    Defining civil and criminal penalties for violations of Section 331
  20. Section 334 - Seizure

    21 U.S.C. § 334   Cited 374 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Authorizing a libel for condemnation of adulterated and misbranded pharmaceuticals
  21. Section 814.39 - PMA supplements

    21 C.F.R. § 814.39   Cited 152 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Authorizing medical device manufacturers to change labels to "add or strengthen a contraindication, warning, precaution, or information about an adverse reaction"
  22. Section 820.198 - [Effective until 2/2/2026] Complaint files

    21 C.F.R. § 820.198   Cited 36 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Requiring manufacturers to "establish and maintain procedures for receiving, reviewing, and evaluating complaints by a formally designated unit" including ensuring "timely" and "uniform" review of complaints
  23. Section 814.44 - Procedures for review of a PMA

    21 C.F.R. § 814.44   Cited 35 times   1 Legal Analyses

    (a) FDA will begin substantive review of a PMA after the PMA is accepted for filing under § 814.42 . FDA may refer the PMA to a panel on its own initiative, and will do so upon request of an applicant, unless FDA determines that the application substantially duplicates information previously reviewed by a panel. If FDA refers an application to a panel, FDA will forward the PMA, or relevant portions thereof, to each member of the appropriate FDA panel for review. During the review process, FDA may