Lester v. Abiomed, Inc., et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio granted Abiomed, Inc. and Johnson & Johnson’s partial motion to dismiss and motion to strike amended class allegations in a medical-device product-liability action. The court dismissed with prejudice claims for fraudulent concealment, fraudulent misrepresentation, and violations of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act as abrogated by the Ohio Product Liability Act. The court also struck the proposed nationwide personal-injury class allegations because individualized issues, differing state laws, and lack of predominance and superiority defeated class treatment.

Holdings

1. The Ohio Product Liability Act abrogates Plaintiff's fraudulent concealment and fraudulent misrepresentation claims because the claims are substantively failure-to-warn product-liability claims, notwithstanding their fraud labels.
2. The Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act claim was abrogated by the OPLA because it was primarily rooted in product-liability allegations concerning the safety and defects of the devices; it also failed because the complaint sought damages for personal injury or death and did not adequately plead reliance or proximate cause.
3. Even if the fraud claims were not abrogated by the OPLA, they would be dismissed because Plaintiff failed to plead reliance and failed to identify with particularity the alleged concealment or misrepresentation.
4. The proposed nationwide personal-injury and product-liability class failed the predominance requirement because individualized questions concerning defects, causation, medical histories, warnings, defenses, and applicable state law overwhelmingly predominated over common questions.
5. The proposed class failed the superiority requirement because the individualized inquiries and differing legal standards made a class action an inferior method of adjudication.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Ohio Product Liability Act abrogated Plaintiff's fraudulent concealment, fraudulent misrepresentation, and Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act claims because they were based on alleged defects and failure-to-warn conduct involving the medical devices.
2. Whether the fraud claims independently failed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) for failure to plead reliance and the who, what, when, where, and how of the alleged concealment or misrepresentation.
3. Whether the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act claim was unavailable because the complaint sought damages for personal injury or death and failed to plead reliance or proximate cause.
4. Whether the proposed nationwide personal-injury and product-liability class failed the predominance and superiority requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), such that the class allegations should be stricken before discovery.

Disposition

other