Hodges v. Pfizer, Inc.
0:14-cv-04855
D. MinnesotaMar 27, 2015Background
- Plaintiff Lamar Hodges, Jr. suffered severe Stevens-Johnson Syndrome/TEN after ingesting Advil at age 16, with permanent disfigurement and vision loss.
- Hodges filed a multi-count complaint against Pfizer, Wyeth, LLC, and Wyeth Consumer Healthcare asserting claims including failure to warn, manufacturing defect, negligence (including willful and wanton), breach of express and implied warranty, and various fraud-based claims.
- Defendants moved under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) to dismiss several counts as insufficiently pleaded: failure to warn, manufacturing defect, breach of express warranty, part of willful and wanton negligence, and fraud-based claims.
- Hodges conceded dismissal of his implied warranty claim (stipulated) and sought leave to amend other claims; defendants opposed amendment on local-rule procedural grounds.
- The court dismissed the manufacturing defect claim without prejudice, denied dismissal of the willful and wanton negligence claim, deferred ruling on the remaining challenged claims to allow Hodges to move to amend in compliance with Local Rule 15, and noted Hodges may seek leave to amend if discovery yields facts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Manufacturing defect (Count III) | Hodges pleads the product was defective in design/formulation and unreasonably dangerous. | Claim is conclusory; no factual allegations showing the product departed from intended design. | Dismissed without prejudice for failure to plausibly plead a manufacturing defect. |
| Willful and wanton negligence (Count IX, in part) | Defendants knew certain populations (e.g., youth, African-Americans) faced heightened SJS/TEN risk; Hodges was a 16-year-old African-American in peril. | Defendants contend Hodges fails to allege he was in a position of peril known to them. | Denied — allegations that certain populations were at risk and Hodges’s facts are sufficient at pleading stage. |
| Failure to warn, breach of express warranty, fraud-based claims (Counts I, VIII, VII, IV/V/X–XIII) | Hodges indicated he may be able to add facts and requested leave to amend to cure pleading deficiencies. | Defendants seek dismissal and oppose amendment for failure to follow Local Rule 15 (no proposed amended pleading filed). | Deferred — plaintiff given 7 days to file a proper motion to amend; court will then reconsider dismissal motion as to these claims. |
| Implied warranty claim | Hodges agreed to dismiss. | Defendants did not move to dismiss. | Dismissed with prejudice (stipulated). |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for pleading)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading requires more than conclusory allegations)
- Hamm v. Groose, 15 F.3d 110 (8th Cir. 1994) (pleadings construed in favor of nonmoving party)
- Brown v. Medtronic, Inc., 628 F.3d 451 (8th Cir. 2010) (court need not accept unreasonable inferences)
- Riley v. Cordis Corp., 625 F. Supp. 2d 769 (D. Minn. 2009) (dismissing manufacturing defect where no specific manufacturing failure alleged)
- Gage v. HSM Elec. Prot. Servs., Inc., 655 F.3d 821 (8th Cir. 2011) (elements of willful and wanton negligence require peril known to defendant)