Francis v. Johnson & Johnson

Background

Damian Francis brought a products-liability action against Johnson & Johnson without a lawyer. He alleged that he took Risperidone around 2009 and that the medication caused weight gain and gynecomastia. He also alleged that Johnson & Johnson aggressively marketed Risperidone by failing to state certain side effects on the bottle, failing to warn about gynecomastia, promoting Risperidone for children without Food and Drug Administration approval, and downplaying risks to older patients.

The case began in New York state court on August 27, 2021, and Johnson & Johnson later moved it to federal court. Francis filed three amended complaints. The court had dismissed the first amended complaint without prejudice and allowed another amendment, then dismissed the second amended complaint and allowed one final amendment. Francis filed the Third Amended Complaint on March 21, 2025.

Motion and legal standards

Johnson & Johnson moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim. Johnson & Johnson also argued that the claims were barred by New York’s statute of limitations, the deadline for filing a lawsuit.

The court was required to accept well-pleaded facts as true and draw reasonable inferences in Francis’s favor, while not accepting conclusory statements without supporting facts. The court also applied the more flexible reading generally given to filings by people representing themselves, but stated that this status does not excuse compliance with substantive and procedural law.

Under New York law, the court explained, personal-injury claims generally must be filed within three years after the injury was discovered or reasonably should have been discovered. The court could decide a limitations defense on a dismissal motion when the defense appeared on the face of the complaint.

Court’s analysis

The court treated the Third Amended Complaint as asserting a strict products-liability failure-to-warn claim. To state that type of claim, Francis had to plausibly allege that the warning was inadequate and that the inadequate warning proximately caused his injuries.

The court found that Francis did not provide nonconclusory facts showing that Johnson & Johnson failed to give an adequate warning. It noted that the Risperdal label warned about the possibility of gynecomastia at least as early as 2006, and Francis did not allege why the specific warning language was inadequate. The court also found that he alleged no facts showing that the medication was defective or that Johnson & Johnson was negligent. The court took judicial notice of facts concerning the Risperdal labels because it found those facts could be accurately determined from reliable sources.

The court separately concluded that the claims were time-barred under New York Civil Practice Law and Rules sections 214(5) and 214-c(2). Francis argued that he was not diagnosed with gynecomastia until 2018, relying on a physician’s letter dated February 24, 2018. Even assuming that was when he first learned of the diagnosis, the court calculated that he needed to file by February 24, 2021. His initial filing on August 27, 2021, came about six months too late. The court also declined to apply a statute of repose from another state because New York has no applicable statute of repose for these products-liability claims and Francis raised no choice-of-law issue.

Disposition

Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. granted Johnson & Johnson’s motion to dismiss with prejudice. The court stated that Francis had been given three opportunities to amend, continued to fail to state a claim, and could not cure the statute-of-limitations problems through another amendment.