The following is our summary of the Supreme Court’s actions on petitions for review in civil cases from the Court’s conference on Wednesday, April 30, 2014. The summary includes those civil cases in which (1) review has been granted, (2) review has been denied but one or more justices has voted for review, or (3) the Court has ordered depublished an opinion of the Court of Appeal. This week we note the Court took the unusual step of issuing a grant-and-hold pending the U.S. Supreme Court’s disposition of a petition for certiorari raising the same issue.
Review Granted
Coleman v. Medtronics Corp., S217050—Review Granted and Held—April 30, 2014
The case presents the following issue: Are a plaintiff’s negligence and product liability claims against a medical device manufacturer preempted when the medical device at issue is regulated under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA)?
The plaintiff underwent posterior fusion surgery, and his surgeon used Infuse, the defendant’s medical device, in an off-label manner. After the surgery, the plaintiff suffered from numbness and pain, and a scan later revealed unwanted bone growth in his spine. Evidence showed that the defendant may have been aware of several previous “adverse events” related to its device, and that it had failed to file required reports with the Federal Drug Administration. The plaintiff sued asserting negligence and products liability claims under failure to warn and off-label promotion theories. The trial court granted the defendant’s demurrer, holding that the plaintiff’s manufacturing defect and negligence claims were preempted by federal law. In a published opinion, Coleman v. Medtronic, Inc. (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 413, the Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Five, held: (1) the plaintiff’s negligence per se and failure to warn claims, based on defendant’s failure to file the required “adverse events” reports with the FDA, were not preempted; (2) the negligence per se claim for promoting off-label uses was not preempted; (3) the failure to warn claims for promoting off-label uses were preempted; and (4) the manufacturing defect claim could not be dismissed on preemption grounds in the demurrer stage.
The Supreme Court granted review but deferred further action pending disposition of the petition for certiorari in the United States Supreme Court in Medtronic, Inc. v. Stengel, No. 12-1351 (May 10, 2013), and further order of the Court. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.512(d)(2)). The cert petition in Stengel is on SCOTUSblog’s “Petitions to watch” list.
Quesada v. Herb Thyme Farms, S216305—Review Granted—April 30, 2014
The Supreme Court limited review to the following issue: Whether the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. § 6501 et seq.) preempts state consumer lawsuits alleging that a food product was falsely labeled “100% Organic” when it contained ingredients that were not certified organic under the California Organic Products Act of 2003 (Food & Agr. Code, § 46000 et seq.; Health & Saf. Code, § 110810 et seq.).
The plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit against a grower who is federally approved to label its organic herbs as “USDA Organic.” The claim alleged that the defendant mislabeled packages that contained both organic and conventionally grown herbs as “USDA Organic,” thus violating the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law, and false advertising laws in the state. The defendant argued that such claims are preempted by the federal Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) because they implicated the certification process of OFPA and their resolution could frustrate the regulation and enforcement of the Act. The trial court agreed and granted judgment on the pleadings. On appeal the plaintiffs asserted a new theory of liability and alleged that their claims were solely grounded on the defendant’s violation of the California Organic Products Act (COPA), which codified California’s federally approved state organic program. In a published opinion, Quesada v. Herb Thyme Farms, Inc. (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 642, the Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Three, held that the plaintiffs’ claims are preempted under both OFPA and COPA. In enacting OFPA and in approving state organic programs like COPA, Congress intended to preclude private enforcement through state consumer lawsuits in order to achieve a national standard of the use of “organic” and “USDA Organic” in food labels. The court reasoned that the plaintiffs’ claims would “frustrate the congressional purpose of exclusive federal and state government prosecution.”
Review Denied (with dissenting justices)
Elsheref v. Applied Materials, S217082—Review Denied [Werdegar, J., voting for review]—April 30, 2014
The questions presented were: (1) whether an employer owes a duty of care to a subsequently conceived child of one of its employees, and (2) whether the absence of this preconception duty is fatal to a strict products liability claim.
A mother and child filed a lawsuit against the company who employed the child’s father, alleging that the father was exposed to toxic chemicals at work that caused the child’s birth defects. The complaint alleged six causes of action: negligence, strict liability/ultrahazardous activity, willful misconduct, misrepresentation, premises liability, and strict products liability. The trial court held that the employer did not have a preconception duty to his employee’s child, and granted summary judgment to defendant on all counts. In a published opinion, Elsheref v. Applied Materials, Inc. (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 451, the Court of Appeal, Sixth District, affirmed in part and reversed in part the trial court’s ruling, and held that although the defendant did not owe a preconception duty to his employee’s child, the absence of this duty was not fatal to the plaintiffs’ strict products liability claim.
Depublished
None.
