Dearinger v. Eli Lilly and Company ( 2021 )

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE 9 DAVID J. DEARINGER, et al., CASE NO. C21-0060-JCC 10 Plaintiffs, ORDER 11 v. 12 ELI LILLY AND COMPANY, 13 Defendant. 14 15 This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. Plaintiffs were granted leave to proceed 16 in forma pauperis on January 21, 2021. (Dkt. No. 4.) The Court must dismiss an in forma 17 pauperis complaint if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 18 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). To state a claim for relief, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, 19 accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 20 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is 21 facially plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the 22 reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. “A pleading that 23 offers ‘labels and conclusions’ or ‘a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will 24 not do.’” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). “Dismissal can [also] be based on the lack of a 25 cognizable legal theory.” Balisteri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). 26 Plaintiffs allege that Mr. Dearinger suffered a paralytic stroke after taking Cialis, a drug 1 manufactured by Defendant Eli Lilly and Company. (Dkt. No. 5 at 2–3.) Mr. Dearinger and his 2 wife now seek to assert negligence and loss of consortium claims against Eli Lilly and Company. 3 (Id. at 4–5.) 4 Plaintiffs fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted because they do not plead 5 a cognizable legal theory. Washington’s Product Liability Act, Chapter 7.72 RCW, “is the 6 exclusive remedy for product liability claims.” Macias v. Saberhagen Holdings, Inc., 282 P.3d 7 1069, 1073 (Wash. 2012). “It supplants all common law claims or actions based on harm caused 8 by a product.” Id. This includes “common law actions for negligence.” Wash. State Physicians 9 Ins. Exch. & Ass’n v. Fisons Corp., 858 P.2d 1054, 1066 (Wash. 1993). Therefore, Plaintiffs may 10 not bring a negligence claim or loss of consortium claim against Eli Lilly and Company for harm 11 caused by Cialis. If Plaintiffs wish to sue Defendant Eli Lilly and Company for harm from Cialis, 12 they must assert a claim under the Washington Product Liability Act. 13 Because the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, the Court 14 must DISMISS the complaint. However, the Court dismisses the complaint without prejudice 15 and with leave to amend. That means Plaintiffs may revise their complaint to assert a claim 16 under the Washington Product Liability Act. If Plaintiffs wish to do so, they must file an 17 amended complaint within 21 days of the date of this order. 18 19 DATED this 16th day of February 2021. A 20 21 22 John C. Coughenour 23 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 24 25 26