Products Liability Law Reporter

A federal district court held that parents’ suit against the maker of a medical infusion set failed to state a claim where the plaintiffs offered no factual allegations regarding how the product was defective or unfit for its ordinary purpose.

Denise and Josef Gomez sued Medtronic PLC and others, alleging strict products liability, negligence, and breach of warranty arising out of the death of their daughter, a purchaser and user of a Medtronic MiniMed Infusion Set. The plaintiffs alleged that the infusion set was dangerous and defective and caused their daughter to lose consciousness and die. The defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim.

Granting the motion, the court found that a plaintiff must allege facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face. Specifically, the court said, a plaintiff must plead factual content that allows a court to draw a reasonable inference that a defendant is liable for the alleged misconduct. Citing case law, the court added that this necessitates more than a threadbare “defendant unlawfully harmed me” argument.

The court found that the plaintiffs did not allege how the Medtronic MiniMed Infusion Set was defective and did not allege how it failed. The plaintiffs likewise failed to explain how the infusion set created the alleged danger or the specific and fundamental defect that made the product unfit for its ordinary purpose. They also did not allege how the product was used or how it caused their daughter’s injury and death, the court said.

Consequently, the court granted the motion with leave to amend the complaint within 20 days.

Citation: Gomez v. Medtronic PLC, 2018 WL 5603609 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2018).