912 F.3d 1129
8th Cir.2019Background
- Mancini (California resident) took Mirapex for Parkinson’s from Jan 2006–July 2010 and reported increased gambling/compulsive behaviors to his neurologist in Jan and Apr 2008.
- Dr. Lew warned Mancini in 2008 that Mirapex may cause compulsive behaviors and advised cutting back; Mancini resisted and continued the drug until July 2010 when his family discovered substantial gambling debts.
- Mancini sued pharmaceutical defendants in Dec 2010 in multidistrict Mirapex litigation, alleging Mirapex-induced compulsive gambling caused financial losses.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment on statute-of-limitations grounds under California law (two-year period for drug ingestion personal-injury claims); district court held accrual no later than Apr 23, 2008 and dismissed Mancini’s claims as time-barred.
- Mancini argued (1) tolling under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 352(a) because he was “insane” when the claim accrued, (2) a continuing-violations theory (each dose = new claim), and (3) the district court abused its discretion by denying discovery under Rule 56(d). The district court rejected all three and granted summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tolling for insanity under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 352(a) | Mancini was "insane" (lacked insight) while on Mirapex, so limitations were tolled until he stopped in July 2010 | Mancini was functioning (employment, rental properties, income) and knew Mirapex might cause compulsions, so no tolling | No tolling: evidence showed Mancini was capable of managing affairs and understanding nature/effects of his acts when claim accrued; summary judgment affirmed |
| Continuing violations / accrual per dose | Each ingestion of Mirapex creates a separate actionable wrong, so doses within two years of filing are timely | The wrongful act was failure to warn/prescribe; accrual occurred when Mancini discovered the connection in early 2008 | Rejected: single wrongdoing accrued in early 2008; later harms from continued voluntary use are time-barred |
| Adequacy of evidence of insanity (material fact) | Post-cessation physician notes and Mancini affidavit show lack of insight while medicated | Contemporaneous objective evidence (job, income, property management, doctor notes) contradicts insanity claim | Court: Mancini failed to show a genuine issue for trial; no reasonable jury could find statutory insanity in early 2008 |
| Denial of Rule 56(d) discovery motion | Needed discovery on whether defendants knew Mirapex caused incapacity, relevant to tolling | Whether defendants knew is irrelevant to whether Mancini himself was insane when accrual occurred | No abuse of discretion: requested discovery would not create a triable issue on Mancini’s personal incapacity |
Key Cases Cited
- Pearl v. Pearl, 177 P. 845 (Cal. 1918) (definition of insanity for tolling includes incapacity to care for property or transact business)
- Hsu v. Mt. Zion Hosp., 66 Cal. Rptr. 659 (Cal. Ct. App. 1968) (insanity for tolling measured by ability to understand nature/effects of acts and manage affairs)
- Grisham v. Phillip Morris U.S.A., Inc., 151 P.3d 1151 (Cal. 2007) (single tort yields one claim; continuing accrual applies only to recurring obligations)
- Aryeh v. Canon Bus. Sols., Inc., 292 P.3d 871 (Cal. 2013) (recurring breaches accrue each time a wrongful act occurs)
- United Air Lines, Inc. v. Evans, 431 U.S. 553 (1977) (continuing violation/critical question is whether a present violation exists)
- Gazal v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharm., Inc., 647 F.3d 833 (8th Cir. 2011) (similar tolling analysis where plaintiff managed business and sought treatment for Mirapex side effects)
- Ashley v. Boyle’s Famous Corned Beef Co., 66 F.3d 164 (8th Cir. 1995) (continuing violations doctrine; focus on present violation)
- Nuacke v. City of Park Hills, 284 F.3d 923 (8th Cir. 2002) (summary judgment burden: nonmovant must produce more than scintilla of evidence)