Boris v. Atrium Medical Corporation

Background

Joanne Boris alleged that she suffered stomach pain, tenderness, abdominal discomfort, limited range of motion, and extensive scar tissue after Atrium’s ProLite Mesh was implanted during her April 21, 2016 hernia-repair surgery. She sued Atrium Medical Corporation and Maquet Cardiovascular, LLC, asserting strict-liability claims for design defect, manufacturing defect, and failure to warn; negligence; breach of warranty; fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation; consumer fraud; unjust enrichment; and punitive damages.

Defendants moved to dismiss the claims. On a motion to dismiss, the court considers whether the complaint contains enough factual allegations to make the claims legally plausible, generally treating well-pleaded facts as true.

Personal Jurisdiction Over Maquet Cardiovascular

The court held that it lacked personal jurisdiction over Maquet Cardiovascular, LLC. The complaint alleged that Maquet was organized under New Jersey law and had its principal place of business there, so it was not considered essentially at home in New York. The court also rejected the argument that Maquet’s registration to do business in New York established general jurisdiction.

The court separately found that the complaint did not plausibly establish specific jurisdiction. Boris argued in her opposition brief that Maquet bought ProLite Mesh products from Atrium and transferred them through the distribution chain. But those facts were not alleged in the amended complaint, and the complaint’s allegations describing Maquet as Atrium’s alter ego, successor, and agent were largely conclusory. The court further stated that, even if Maquet had been an intermediary, the allegations did not show that it targeted New York or had regular or high-volume sales there. The court therefore dismissed Maquet from the action.

Product-Liability and Negligence Claims

The court analyzed Boris’s strict-liability and negligence claims together because, under the New York law discussed in the opinion, those theories are functionally equivalent for the alleged design, manufacturing, and warning defects.

For design defect, the complaint needed to allege a safer, feasible alternative design. The court found that Boris’s allegations that safer and equally effective alternatives existed were conclusory and did not adequately identify or describe such a design.

For manufacturing defect, Boris did not identify a specific defective component, a departure from the manufacturing process, improper workmanship, or defective materials. The court also found that her injuries could not establish a manufacturing defect through circumstantial evidence because the complaint described them as common injuries and known side effects of hernia-repair surgeries using mesh.

For failure to warn, the court found that the allegations were largely conclusory. Boris did not identify the exact warnings provided with the device or explain factually how they were inadequate. The court dismissed this claim.

Fraud, Warranty, and Unjust-Enrichment Claims

The fraudulent-misrepresentation claims did not satisfy the heightened pleading standard for fraud. Boris identified certain statements from Atrium’s product materials, such as statements describing the mesh as flexible, comfortable, and smooth, but did not explain why those statements were fraudulent. Her omission-based fraud claims also failed because the complaint did not provide facts showing what information Boris or her physician received or whether either relied on it.

The negligent-misrepresentation claims failed for similar reasons: Boris did not plausibly identify the false statements or omissions on which she or her physician relied.

The consumer-fraud claims under New York General Business Law sections 349 and 350 also failed because Boris did not plead facts supporting the conclusion that defendants made misleading misrepresentations or that she relied on them.

The express-warranty claim failed because the complaint did not identify a specific actionable affirmation or promise by defendants. The implied-warranty claim failed because the alleged pain and other injuries did not establish that the mesh was unfit for its intended purpose.

The unjust-enrichment claim failed because Boris did not plausibly allege that the product was unsafe or that defendants were unjustly enriched through actionable misrepresentations.

Because the other claims were dismissed, the court stated that it did not need to address the merits of the punitive-damages claim.

Leave to Amend and Disposition

The court found no showing of bad faith or prejudice that would justify denying amendment. It therefore granted Boris leave to amend her complaint.

Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. granted defendants’ motions to dismiss and granted Boris leave to amend. The court ordered her to submit an amended complaint by March 5, 2020.