In Re Avandia Marketing, Sales Practices & Products Liability Litigation
564 F. App'x 672
| 3rd Cir. | 2014Background
- Dumpson, California resident and former Avandia user, seeks refunds and insurance co-pays for Avandia purchases (2000–2007).
- Amended complaint asserts California consumer protection claims: CLRA, UCL, and FAL, alleging GlaxoSmithKline knew of Avandia dangers and concealed them.
- District Court dismissed the amended complaint for failure to state a claim, with prejudice, and without leave to amend.
- The court found Dumpson harmed by Avandia and identified no precise damages or amounts for alternative medications.
- Dumpson appeals the dismissal and the denial of leave to amend, arguing the pleadings should state a viable claim.
- Court reviews for abuse of discretion on denial of leave to amend and affirms dismissal with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the amended complaint states a California consumer-protection claim | Dumpson alleges Glaxo hid dangers, rendering warnings insufficient. | GSK contends no cognizable harm or damages alleged; causation and reliance not pleaded. | No, claims fail to state a claim. |
| Whether the denial of leave to amend was proper | Dumpson should be allowed to amend to cure pleading defects. | Further amendment would be futile; already given opportunity. | Yes, denial affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Byers v. Intuit, Inc., 600 F.3d 286 (3d Cir. 2010) (standing and jurisdiction principles discussed)
- In re Burlington Coat Factory Sec. Litig., 114 F.3d 1410 (3d Cir. 1997) (abuse of discretion in denying leave to amend)
- Kulick v. Pocono Downs Racing Ass’n., 816 F.2d 895 (3d Cir. 1987) (dismissal for lack of jurisdiction not foreclosed by merits)