Wilt v. Pfizer, Inc.

Summary

The court grants plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis but dismisses his complaint against Pfizer, Inc. with leave to amend. The order concludes that plaintiff cannot sue on behalf of the public, lacks a private right of action under the FTC Act, fails to establish federal-question jurisdiction or state-law claims, and must file an amended complaint or notice of voluntary dismissal within thirty days.

Holdings

1. The complaint failed to state a § 1983 claim because plaintiff did not allege that Pfizer acted under color of state law and did not plausibly allege a violation of constitutional or other federal rights.
2. The Federal Trade Commission Act does not provide a private right of action; only the Federal Trade Commission has standing to enforce the Act.
3. Plaintiff failed to state a CLRA claim because he did not allege reliance on Pfizer's misrepresentations in purchasing goods or services or economic injury resulting from such a purchase.
4. Plaintiff failed to state a claim under California's false-advertising law because he did not allege that he entered into a transaction, relied on the advertisements, or lost money or property as a result.
5. Section 17500.5 did not apply because plaintiff did not allege an unadvertised restriction on the quantity of an article advertised for sale or a refusal to sell at the advertised price.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the complaint stated a cognizable claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Pfizer, a private corporation, and plausibly alleged a violation of federal or constitutional rights.
2. Whether the Federal Trade Commission Act provides plaintiff with a private right of action.
3. Whether plaintiff adequately pleaded claims under the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, California false-advertising law, and California Business and Professions Code § 17500.5.
4. Whether the complaint adequately invoked federal subject matter jurisdiction.

Disposition

dismissed