Petersen v. Natera, Inc.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of California grants Natera, Inc.’s motion to dismiss and denies a motion to continue in a putative consumer class action concerning advertising and marketing of preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy. The court holds that the complaint sounds in fraud and fails to satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b), but dismisses the claims with leave to amend. The court also declines to apply the learned intermediary doctrine to the plaintiffs’ California consumer-protection claims and finds the alleged duty to disclose adequately pleaded.

Holdings

1. All of plaintiffs' claims sounded in fraud because they rested on the same unified course of allegedly fraudulent statements and omissions; therefore, the entire complaint was subject to Rule 9(b)'s heightened pleading requirements.
2. Plaintiffs failed to plead their fraud-based claims with the particularity required by Rule 9(b) because they alleged only approximate purchase dates, did not identify when or where they viewed the challenged statements, did not establish which statements appeared before their purchases, and relied partly on post-purchase sources.
3. The court could consider the consent forms and cited scientific articles under incorporation by reference, and could take judicial notice of undisputed government-issued laboratory licenses, but could not treat disputed factual assertions in those materials as true or use the materials to resolve competing factual theories against the complaint.
4. Plaintiffs adequately alleged a duty to disclose under California law based on partial representations about Spectrum's accuracy and benefits coupled with alleged suppression of material contrary information.
5. The learned intermediary doctrine did not bar plaintiffs' California consumer-protection claims because the claims alleged material misrepresentations about PGT-A's capabilities, reliability, and limitations rather than disguised failure-to-warn claims.
6. If Natera was CLIA-certified, the Michigan Consumer Protection Act's exemption for transactions specifically authorized by law would apply to the alleged conduct because the relevant inquiry is whether the general transaction, rather than the specific alleged misconduct, was authorized.
7. Plaintiffs' warranty claims were subject to dismissal because they alleged notice of CLRA violations but did not allege that they provided Natera pre-suit notice of the alleged warranty breaches.
8. Plaintiffs' punitive-damages requests had to be dismissed without prejudice because Natera qualified as a health care provider under section 425.13 and plaintiffs had not obtained the required order permitting amendment to plead punitive damages.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the complaint's claims, which were based on a unified course of allegedly fraudulent advertising and omissions, had to satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b).
2. Whether the complaint pleaded the who, what, when, where, how, falsity, and reliance details required by Rule 9(b).
3. Whether the court could consider consent forms, scientific studies, and government-issued laboratory licenses through incorporation by reference or judicial notice.
4. Whether plaintiffs adequately alleged a duty to disclose under California law.
5. Whether the learned intermediary doctrine barred plaintiffs' California consumer-protection claims.
6. Whether the Michigan Consumer Protection Act exemption for conduct specifically authorized by law could apply if Natera was CLIA-certified.
7. Whether plaintiffs' warranty claims were subject to dismissal for lack of pre-suit notice and whether PGT-A testing constituted a service rather than a good.
8. Whether plaintiffs' punitive-damages requests were barred absent compliance with California Code of Civil Procedure section 425.13.

Disposition

dismissed