Ambriz v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc.
1:19-cv-01391
E.D. Cal.Apr 3, 2020Background
- On March 15, 2018, CVS Store #2944 allegedly filled a child D.A.’s prescriptions (amoxicillin and ibuprofen) in an excessively concentrated form; D.A. suffered immediate adverse reactions and was hospitalized.
- Plaintiffs Blanca Ambriz (mother/guardian) and D.A. sued CVS entities in Tulare County, alleging negligence, strict products liability, negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED), and negligent hiring/retention/supervision; plaintiffs allege they served a MICRA pre‑suit notice.
- CVS removed the action to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction and moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).
- The core legal disputes: whether plaintiffs’ claims are governed by MICRA/professional negligence rules; whether a pharmacy can be held strictly liable; whether Ambriz adequately pleaded a bystander NIED; and whether negligent hiring/supervision is cognizable.
- Court ruling: dismissal granted as to the strict products‑liability claim and the NIED claim; denial of dismissal as to the negligence claim (construed as professional negligence) and the negligent hiring/retention/supervision claim; 21 days’ leave to amend.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the negligence claim must be dismissed because MICRA governs professional negligence | The negligence claim is effectively a professional negligence claim despite labeling; pre‑suit MICRA notice was given | The claim is labeled "general" negligence and must be dismissed because health‑care providers are subject to MICRA | Denied — complaint gives fair notice; claim construed as professional negligence under MICRA and survives pleading stage |
| Whether a pharmacy can be held strictly liable for dispensing a prescription allegedly misfilled | The drug was not properly prescribed/filled, so strict liability should apply | Murphy and California law bar strict liability for pharmacies dispensing prescription drugs | Granted — strict products‑liability claim dismissed; Murphy precludes strict liability against pharmacies here |
| Whether Ambriz stated a bystander NIED claim | Ambriz suffered severe emotional distress from witnessing child’s injury; claim brought on her behalf | Plaintiff must allege contemporaneous awareness that defendant’s conduct was causing the child’s injury | Granted dismissal — complaint fails to allege Ambriz had contemporaneous awareness that CVS’s conduct was causing harm, so bystander NIED fails |
| Whether negligent hiring/retention/supervision claim is cognizable separate claim or must be treated as professional negligence | Plaintiffs concede it is professional in nature but ask not to dismiss and prefer it remain a separate claim | CVS argues such claims are professional negligence and should be dismissed or merged under MICRA | Denied — claim states a cognizable professional negligence theory (direct liability) and survives; court declines to merge claims for clarity |
Key Cases Cited
- Murphy v. E.R. Squibb & Sons, 40 Cal.3d 672 (1985) (California Supreme Court holding pharmacies are generally not strictly liable for prescription drugs because dispensing is a service)
- Thing v. La Chusa, 48 Cal.3d 644 (1989) (sets elements for bystander NIED: close relationship, presence/awareness, serious emotional distress)
- Ochoa v. Superior Court, 39 Cal.3d 159 (1985) (requires contemporaneous awareness that defendant’s conduct is causing the child’s injury for bystander recovery)
- Twombly v. Bell Atl. Corp., 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for federal pleading)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (legal conclusions insufficient; complaint must plead factual content supporting plausible claim)
- So v. Shin, 212 Cal. App.4th 652 (2013) (hiring/supervision of medical personnel falls within scope of professional services governed by MICRA)
- Johnson v. City of Shelby, 574 U.S. 10 (2014) (Rule 8(a) does not require perfect statement of legal theory; form should not defeat claims)
- Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2000) (leave to amend should be freely given unless amendment cannot cure defects)