Francis v. Johnson & Johnson
- Andrew Carter
- 1:22-cv-03812
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Francis v. Johnson & Johnson, Judge Andrew Carter granted dismissal of Francis’s products-liability claim but allowed him to amend because the allegations were insufficient and appeared time-barred.
Damian Francis and Johnson & Johnson. Francis’s complaint was dismissed without prejudice, but he was granted leave to file a First Amended Complaint by January 28, 2024.
What happened
In Francis v. Johnson & Johnson, Damian Francis alleged that taking Johnson & Johnson’s drug Risperidone from 2007 to 2009 caused weight gain and gynecomastia, leading to physical and emotional harm. Francis represented himself.
Johnson & Johnson asked the court to dismiss the amended complaint because it did not adequately state a products-liability claim and was filed too late under New York law. The court agreed that Francis did not allege facts showing a failure to warn, a defective drug, or negligence. It also said that, even assuming Francis discovered his symptoms in 2009, the claims were time-barred.
Judge Andrew Carter granted the motion, dismissed the complaint without prejudice, and granted Francis permission to file a First Amended Complaint by January 28, 2024.
The detailed version
- Francis v. Johnson & Johnson · No. 1:22-cv-03812
- Andrew Carter
- Dec. 28, 2023
Background
Damian Francis brought a products-liability action against Johnson & Johnson without a lawyer. He alleged that he was prescribed and took Risperidone for schizophrenia between 2007 and 2009, and that the drug caused significant weight gain and gynecomastia. He also alleged physical and emotional harm, including being taunted because of these conditions.
The Motion
Johnson & Johnson moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not allege enough facts to state a legally sufficient claim. It also argued that Francis’s claims were barred by New York’s statute of limitations.
The court construed the amended complaint as asserting a strict-products-liability claim based on an alleged failure to warn. To state that claim, Francis had to allege that the drug caused his injury and that the manufacturer failed to warn about the possibility of that reaction. The court found that the amended complaint did not allege facts showing that Johnson & Johnson failed to warn, that the drug was defective, or that Johnson & Johnson was negligent.
Statute of Limitations
The court also held that the claims appeared time-barred. Under the New York law discussed in the opinion, personal-injury claims generally must be brought within three years after the injury is discovered or should have been discovered through reasonable diligence. The court assumed, for purposes of its analysis, that Francis discovered his symptoms in 2009—the latest possible date stated in the amended complaint. Because Francis filed the action more than a decade later, the court concluded that the claims were time-barred. The court also found no pleaded facts supporting equitable tolling, a doctrine that can sometimes extend a filing deadline.
Ruling
Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. granted Johnson & Johnson’s motion. The court dismissed Francis’s complaint without prejudice and granted him leave to file a First Amended Complaint to try to correct the deficiencies. The court ordered him to file it by January 28, 2024.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.