Laura Plumlee v. Pfizer, Inc.
664 F. App'x 651
| 9th Cir. | 2016Background
- Plaintiff Laura Plumlee stopped taking a generic equivalent of Zoloft in June 2008 believing it was ineffective and contrary to Pfizer’s representations.
- Plumlee filed suit against Pfizer in January 2013 and alleged she first learned of Pfizer’s alleged misrepresentations when she watched a 60 Minutes rerun in May 2012.
- The district court dismissed Plumlee’s First Amended Complaint with prejudice under Rule 12(b)(6) as time-barred by California’s three- and four-year statutes of limitations.
- The central legal question was whether the discovery rule delayed accrual of Plumlee’s claims because she allegedly lacked reason to suspect wrongdoing until May 2012.
- The district court took judicial notice of publicly available materials predating May 2012 that criticized Zoloft’s efficacy and indicated Pfizer’s unpublished trial data; the court concluded a reasonably diligent consumer would have had inquiry notice by June 2008.
- The court held Plumlee failed to allege she exercised reasonable diligence (or inability despite diligence) to discover the factual basis for her claims during the limitations periods and therefore dismissal with prejudice was proper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether accrual was delayed by the discovery rule | Plumlee: she did not learn of Pfizer’s alleged misrepresentations until May 2012 | Pfizer: Plumlee had inquiry notice by June 2008 when she stopped the drug | Held: Discovery rule does not delay accrual; inquiry notice existed by June 2008 |
| Whether Plumlee pleaded reasonable diligence to trigger discovery rule | Plumlee: alleges time/manner of discovery (May 2012 60 Minutes) | Pfizer: complaint shows no facts of diligence between 2008–2012 | Held: Plaintiff failed to plead facts showing reasonable diligence or inability to discover earlier |
| Whether publicly available materials could be judicially noticed | Plumlee: argued no criticism of Zoloft’s efficacy was publicly available | Pfizer: many public sources discussed unpublished trials and placebo equivalence | Held: Court properly took judicial notice of public documents showing such criticism |
| Whether dismissal with prejudice was an abuse of discretion | Plumlee: implied amendment could remedy defects | Pfizer: plaintiff offered no new facts/theories despite warning | Held: No abuse; dismissal with prejudice appropriate because plaintiff offered no viable amendment |
Key Cases Cited
- Norgart v. Upjohn Co., 981 P.2d 79 (Cal. 1999) (establishing California discovery rule standard)
- Fox v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc., 110 P.3d 914 (Cal. 2005) (inquiry notice when plaintiff has reason to suspect injury and wrongful cause)
- Grisham v. Philip Morris U.S.A., Inc., 151 P.3d 1151 (Cal. 2007) (pleading requirements when complaint shows claim would be time-barred without discovery rule)
- Von Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena, 592 F.3d 954 (9th Cir. 2010) (courts may judicially notice publications to establish what was publicly available)
- Seven Arts Filmed Entm’t Ltd. v. Content Media Corp. PLC, 733 F.3d 1251 (9th Cir. 2013) (courts need not accept allegations that contradict matters subject to judicial notice)
- Lierboe v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 350 F.3d 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (class representative must have viable individual claims)
- Gardner v. Martino, 563 F.3d 981 (9th Cir. 2009) (denial of leave to amend proper where plaintiff offers no new facts or theories)