Pettibone v. Medtronic, Inc.

Background

Glen Pettibone brought claims against Medtronic, Inc. concerning the ATLANTIS SPINE SYSTEM and alleged that two surgical screws broke into pieces. Medtronic moved to dismiss Pettibone’s first amended complaint.

Rulings on the Motion

The court denied Medtronic’s argument that the complaint was an impermissible “shotgun pleading,” explaining that the complaint did not improperly allege that everyone did everything.

The court denied the motion to dismiss the manufacturing-defect claims. It concluded that allegations that two screws broke into pieces were enough at the pleading stage to allege that the product differed from apparently identical products.

The supplied opinion text is incomplete in the portion addressing the motion to dismiss the strict-liability and negligence claims for an allegation concerning paragraph 23. The text shown does not include the ruling’s outcome for that portion.

The court denied the motion to dismiss the negligent-design claim for failure to allege an alternative design. It explained that, under California law, an alternative design is one factor that may show a design defect, not a required element that must be pleaded.

For the failure-to-warn claim, the court found that the complaint adequately described allegedly inadequate warnings. It therefore denied the challenge based on failure to allege the contents of a specific warning. However, the court granted the motion to dismiss the failure-to-warn claim for failure to allege causation, with leave to amend. The court said the complaint did not specifically allege that Dr. Chou would have acted differently if given adequate warnings.

The court denied the motion to dismiss the express-warranty claim for failure to identify an express warranty. It found sufficient allegations that Medtronic represented that the system was safe and high quality and that the screws would securely and safely attach the cervical plate to Pettibone’s cervical vertebrae.

The court granted the motion to dismiss the implied-warranty claim for lack of privity, with leave to amend. “Privity” is the required legal relationship between the parties to support this type of warranty claim. The court reasoned that, under the learned-intermediary doctrine discussed in the opinion, the prescribing doctor stands in the patient’s place for warranties concerning the implanted medical device, meaning Pettibone relied on Dr. Chou’s skill or judgment rather than directly on Medtronic’s implied warranties. The court also reminded counsel of obligations under Rule 11, which governs representations made to the court.

Disposition and Next Step

The court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss, with leave to amend. It set November 5, 2021, as the compliance deadline. Five business days before that date, Pettibone was required to file either a notice stating that he would stand on the current pleadings or a second amended complaint. Medtronic then had no more than two weeks to respond. The order terminated Docket Number 20.

Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered the order on October 20, 2021.