Darringer v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc.
4:15-cv-00300
N.D. Cal.Aug 3, 2015Background
- Darringer and wife allege products liability, negligence, and loss of consortium against Intuitive Surgical, Inc. over the Da Vinci Robot.
- Intuitive produced and marketed the Da Vinci Robot as safe; Darringer relied on physician and company materials.
- Darringer underwent laparoscopic left pyeloplasty using the Da Vinci Robot on February 6, 2012, injuring him.
- Injuries include severe vascular damage, transected veins, and bleeding; ongoing pain and disability are alleged.
- Plaintiffs filed a FAC on January 21, 2015; Intuitive moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
- The court granted the motion to dismiss with leave to amend, allowing a second amended complaint by August 20, 2015.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether claims are time-barred by the two-year statute of limitations | Darringer seeks tolling via delayed discovery | Claims accrued at injury date; not tolled | Time-barred; accrual date precludes tolling |
| Whether delayed discovery tolls the statute of limitations | Discovery rule applies due to concealment by Intuitive | Plaintiff failed to plead time and manner of discovery or diligence | Not tolled; insufficient facts to support delayed discovery |
| Whether the complaint plausibly pleads facts to support delayed discovery | FAC shows concealment and lack of knowledge | Conclusory; no specifics on discovery or diligence | Insufficient facts; discovery rule not pleaded adequately |
| Whether punitive damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees are properly pled | Requests for such relief are supported by facts | FAC lacks specific factual basis for those remedies | Dismissed for lack of factual support |
| Whether leave to amend should be denied or granted | amendment could cure deficiencies | Amendments would be futile if limitations bar claims | Granted with leave to amend; second amended complaint due |
Key Cases Cited
- Saliter v. Pierce Bros. Mortuaries, 81 Cal. App. 3d 292 (Cal. Ct. App. 1978) (discovery rule does not toll when knowledge exists or is discoverable)
- Fox v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc., 35 Cal. 4th 797 (Cal. 2005) (burden on plaintiff to plead time and manner of discovery; diligence required)
- Norgart v. Upjohn Co., 21 Cal. 4th 383 (Cal. 1999) (establishes accrual and discovery concepts for tolling)
- Clemens v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 534 F.3d 1017 (9th Cir. 2008) (foreign statute-based discovery rule; pleading requirements)
- Santa Maria v. Pacific Bell, 202 F.3d 1170 (9th Cir. 2000) (equitable tolling pre-Socop-Gonzalez; later overruled approach)
- Socop-Gonzalez v. INS, 272 F.3d 1176 (9th Cir. 2001) (overruled Santa Maria reasoning on tolling; standardized tolling approach)
- Burnett v. New York Central R. Co., 380 U.S. 424 (Supreme Court 1965) (rejection of Santa Maria tolling approach)
- Aryeh v. Canon Bus. Solutions, Inc., 55 Cal. 4th 1185 (Cal. 2013) (discusses accrual and discovery in product liability)