Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Allo v. Allergan USA, Inc.

United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana

January 2, 2020

SHERIDAN ALLO
v.
ALLERGAN USA, INC.

         SECTION “F”

          ORDER AND REASONS

          MARTIN L. C. FELDMAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Before the Court is Allergan's Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss Sheridan Allo's complaint. For the reasons that follow, the motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

         Background

         This products-liability action arises from injuries Sheridan Allo says she suffered when an Allergan-manufactured breast implant partially collapsed.

         Allergan manufactured a breast implant product called the “Natrelle Style 410 FX.” Allo had two of them implanted following a bilateral mastectomy. Three years later, Allo saw her doctor, complaining of pain in her right breast. An MRI revealed that the right implant showed signs of rupture. One month later, Allo had both implants removed. Her doctor examined them and concluded that the right one had partially collapsed. This lawsuit followed.

         Allo sues Allergan under the Louisiana Products Liability Act, La. Rev. Stat. §§ 9:2800.51 - 9:2800.60, and the Louisiana Civil Code's redhibition articles, La. Civ. Code arts. 2520, 2545. She says Allergan is liable because its implants (1) were unreasonably dangerous in construction or composition, (2) lacked an adequate warning, (3) violated an express warranty, and (4) suffered from redhibitory defects.

         Now, Allergan moves to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), contending that Allo's claims are expressly preempted and inadequately pleaded.

         I.

         A complaint must contain a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). A party may move for dismissal of a complaint that fails this requirement. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Such motions are rarely granted because they are viewed with disfavor. Leal v. McHugh, 731 F.3d 405, 410 (5th Cir. 2013) (quoting Turner v. Pleasant, 663 F.3d 770, 775 (5th Cir. 2011)).

         In considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the Court “accept[s] all well-pleaded facts as true and view[s] all facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.” Thompson v. City of Waco, Tex., 764 F.3d 500, 502 (5th Cir. 2014) (citing Doe ex rel. Magee v. Covington Cty. Sch. Dist. ex rel. Keys, 675 F.3d 849, 854 (5th Cir. 2012) (en banc)). Conclusory allegations are not well pleaded and, consequently, are not accepted as true. See Thompson, 764 F.3d at 502-03 (citing Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)).

         To overcome a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, “‘a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'” Gonzalez v. Kay, 577 F.3d 600, 603 (5th Cir. 2009) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678). A claim is facially plausible if it contains “factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.

         “A complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations[.]” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). But it must contain “more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of a cause of action's elements will not do.” Id. at 555. Ultimately, the Court's task is “to determine whether the plaintiff stated a legally cognizable claim that is plausible, not to evaluate the plaintiff's likelihood of success.” Thompson, 764 F.3d at 503 (citation omitted).

         II.

         Before turning to the merits, the Court considers a procedural objection. Allo says the Court should convert the motion into one for summary judgment because Allergan invokes material outside the pleadings. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(d). ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.