16 F. Supp. 3d 1341
N.D. Ala.2014Background
- Plaintiff, a 26-year-old woman, allegedly suffered injuries from Mirena, a uterus-placed device releasing levonorgestrel.
- Plaintiff asserts Mirena causes pseudo-tumor cerebri/idiopathic intracranial hypertension (PTC/IIH) with potential vision loss.
- Defendant Bayer moves to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim; court has diversity jurisdiction (Alabama plaintiff, New Jersey defendant, >$75,000).
- Plaintiff asserts nine state-law claims, including implied, express warranties, negligence, AEMLD strict liability, and fraud-based claims.
- Court applies Twombly/Iqbal plausibility standard and analyzes global deficiency theory versus individual claims.
- Court grants in part: implied warranty claim is dismissed; all other claims survive the motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied warranty viability against Mirena | Spain/Allen allow implied warranty separate from torts for dangerous products. | Implied warranty does not cover health hazards if product fulfills primary purpose. | Implied warranty claim dismissed |
| Negligent design claim sufficiency | Complaint contains design-defect facts and foreseeability; plausible duty/breach. | Counts rely on conclusory statements; lacks factual support. | Plaintiff survives dismissal; design claim plausible |
| AEMLD design-defect claim viability | Mirena is defective/unreasonably dangerous when used as intended. | Design defect arguments based on non-Alabama doctrines; argues Mirena not defective by design. | AEMLD claim survives |
| Breach of express warranty viability | Express warranties alleged regarding Mirena being safe and effective; reliance shown. | Plaintiff must show specific affirmation, description, or basis of bargain; arguments insufficient. | Express warranty claim dismissed |
| Fraud-based and failure-to-warn claims under Rule 9(b) | Adequate particularity based on labeling warnings and duty to warn. | Raises pleading requirements but not fatal at this stage. | Fraud-based claims denied dismissal; failure-to-warn claim survives |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (two-pronged plausibility standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Shell v. Union Oil Co., 489 So.2d 569 (Ala. 1986) (implied warranty not a health-hazard warranty under UCC)
- Spain v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 872 So.2d 101 (Ala. 2003) (implied warranty analysis includes fact-intensive context)
- Allen v. Delchamps, Inc., 624 So.2d 1065 (Ala. 1993) (food products; implied warranty and AMELD can interplay)
- Yamaha Motor Co., Ltd. v. Thornton, 579 So.2d 619 (Ala. 1991) (AEMLD: defect unreasonably dangerous if product unsafe as used)
- Casrell v. Altec Indus., Inc., 335 So.2d 128 (Ala. 1976) (defect focus on safety of product for intended use)
- Rudd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 127 F.Supp.2d 1330 (M.D. Ala. 2001) (design/danger analysis for AEMLD context)