§Why CasetextPricing

Peter Paturzo et al v. Boston Scientific Corporation et al

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case

62 Cited authorities

  1. Ashcroft v. Iqbal

    556 U.S. 662 (2009)   Cited 263,477 times   281 Legal Analyses
    Holding court need not credit "mere conclusory statements" in complaint

  2. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly

    550 U.S. 544 (2007)   Cited 276,716 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

  3. Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr

    518 U.S. 470 (1996)   Cited 2,451 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"

  4. Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc.

    552 U.S. 312 (2008)   Cited 1,051 times   62 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a State’s “‘requirements’” “includ[e] [the state’s] common-law duties”

  5. Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs' Legal Committee

    531 U.S. 341 (2001)   Cited 1,207 times   82 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

  6. Vess v. Ciba-Geigy Corp. USA

    317 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 2003)   Cited 4,322 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Rule 9(b) pleading standards apply to California CLRA, FAL, and UCL claims because, though fraud is not an essential element of those statutes, a plaintiff alleges a fraudulent course of conduct as the basis of those claims

  7. Kearns v. Ford Motor Co.

    567 F.3d 1120 (9th Cir. 2009)   Cited 2,334 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that circumstances constituting fraud must be stated with particularity

  8. Daniels-Hall v. National Educ. Ass'n

    629 F.3d 992 (9th Cir. 2010)   Cited 2,173 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding information made publicly available on official government websites appropriate for judicial notice

  9. Fox v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc.

    35 Cal.4th 797 (Cal. 2005)   Cited 1,272 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[r]esolution of the statute of limitations issue is normally a question of fact."

  10. Norgart v. Upjohn Co.

    21 Cal.4th 383 (Cal. 1999)   Cited 1,326 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"

  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 357,835 times   950 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 162,084 times   197 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 39,880 times   331 Legal Analyses
    Requiring that fraud be pleaded with particularity

  14. Rule 201 - Judicial Notice of Adjudicative Facts

    Fed. R. Evid. 201   Cited 29,431 times   26 Legal Analyses
    Holding "[n]ormally, in deciding a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, courts must limit their inquiry to the facts stated in the complaint and the documents either attached to or incorporated in the complaint. However, courts may also consider matters of which they may take judicial notice."

  15. Section 301 - Short title

    21 U.S.C. § 301   Cited 2,460 times   48 Legal Analyses

    This chapter may be cited as the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. 21 U.S.C. § 301 June 25, 1938, ch. 675, §1, 52 Stat. 1040. STATUTORY NOTES AND RELATED SUBSIDIARIES EFFECTIVE DATE; POSTPONEMENT IN CERTAIN CASES Act June 23, 1939, ch. 242, §§1, 2, 53 Stat. 853, 854, provided that:"[SEC. 1] (a) The effective date of the following provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act is hereby postponed until January 1, 1940: Sections 402(c) [342(c) of this title]; 403(e)(1) [343(e)(1) of this

  16. Section 335.1 - Assault, battery or injury or death caused by wrongful act or negligence

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 335.1   Cited 2,347 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Imposing two-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims

  17. Section 360k - State and local requirements respecting devices

    21 U.S.C. § 360k   Cited 1,041 times   21 Legal Analyses
    Authorizing the FDA to determine the scope of the Medical Devices Amendments' pre-emption clause

  18. Section 360c - Classification of devices intended for human use

    21 U.S.C. § 360c   Cited 801 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 . . ."

  19. Section 337 - Proceedings in name of United States; provision as to subpoenas

    21 U.S.C. § 337   Cited 687 times   21 Legal Analyses
    Providing that suits to enforce the FDCA generally must be brought "by and in the name of the United States"

  20. Section 360e - Premarket approval

    21 U.S.C. § 360e   Cited 504 times   18 Legal Analyses
    Granting FDA authority to conduct hearings regarding PMA withdrawal

  21. 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