§Why CasetextPricing

Souto et al v. Bayer, Corp. et al

MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

20 Cited authorities

  1. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly

    550 U.S. 544 (2007)   Cited 280,127 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

  2. Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc.

    552 U.S. 312 (2008)   Cited 1,059 times   62 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a State’s “‘requirements’” “includ[e] [the state’s] common-law duties”

  3. Warren General Hosp., v. Amgen Inc.

    643 F.3d 77 (3d Cir. 2011)   Cited 1,048 times
    Holding that the indirect purchaser rule applies to prescription drug sales and noting that "[b]ecause of the complicated interplay between market forced, the possibility that the wholesaler was harmed by defendant's actions exists even if the majority of the injury is borne by the indirect purchaser"

  4. In re Medtronic, Inc., Sprint Fidelis Leads

    623 F.3d 1200 (8th Cir. 2010)   Cited 320 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding in medical-device context that potential additional warnings were "precisely the type of state requirement that is 'different from or in addition to' the federal requirement and therefore preempted" (quoting 21 U.S.C. § 360k)

  5. Bilt-Rite v. the Architectural Studio

    581 Pa. 454 (Pa. 2005)   Cited 310 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that negligent misrepresentation tort claims are not barred by the economic loss doctrine

  6. 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

  7. Stengel v. Medtronic Inc.

    704 F.3d 1224 (9th Cir. 2013)   Cited 230 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the MDA does not preempt a state-law claim for violating a state-law duty that parallels a federal-law duty under the MDA"

  8. Gomez v. St. Jude Medical Daig Division Inc.

    442 F.3d 919 (5th Cir. 2006)   Cited 148 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that design defect, failure-to-warn, and breach of express warranty claims under LPLA were preempted by § 360k

  9. Horowitz v. Stryker Corporation

    613 F. Supp. 2d 271 (E.D.N.Y. 2009)   Cited 115 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, under New York law, "an action for breach of express warranty requires...reliance on th[e] promise or representation" (citing CBS Inc. v. Ziff–Davis Pub. Co. , 75 N.Y.2d 496, 554 N.Y.S.2d 449, 553 N.E.2d 997, 1000–01 (1990) )

  10. Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co. v. Cosenza

    258 F.3d 197 (3d Cir. 2001)   Cited 138 times
    Holding that "under Pennsylvania law the success of a derivative claim is `always dependent upon the injured spouse's right to recover" (quoting Scattaregia v. Shin Shen Wu, 495 A.2d 552, 554 (Pa.Super.Ct. 1985))

  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 361,853 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

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

    21 U.S.C. § 360k   Cited 1,047 times   21 Legal Analyses
    Authorizing the FDA to determine the scope of the Medical Devices Amendments' pre-emption clause

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

    21 U.S.C. § 337   Cited 695 times   22 Legal Analyses
    Providing that suits to enforce the FDCA generally must be brought "by and in the name of the United States"