TENTATIVE RULING
Defendants Ethicon, Inc., Johnson & Johnson, and Ethicon US, LLC's summary adjudication of doctor-related claims under the safe harbor doctrine to plaintiff The People of the State of California's ("People") complaint is denied. Defendants have not met their burden to show the Attorney General's doctor-related claims are barred by the California safe harbor doctrine as set forth in Cel-Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co. (1999) 20 Cal.4th 163, 182–187, to the full extent they rest on alleged misrepresentations and omissions in the instructions for use ("IFUs") or product labeling. Judicial notice is granted as requested.
The People allege that defendants engaged in a long running campaign of deceptively marketing pelvic mesh devices to doctors in violation of California's consumer protection statutes. As the United States Supreme Court noted Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr (1996) 518 U.S. 470, 475, 116 S.Ct. 2240, 2245, 135 L.Ed.2d 700, "States tr
Hearing Date
June 06, 2019
Category
Civil - Unlimited
Type
Misc Complaints - Other
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
TENTATIVE RULING
Defendants Ethicon, Inc., Johnson & Johnson, and Ethicon US, LLC's summary adjudication of doctor-related claims under the safe harbor doctrine to plaintiff The People of the State of California's ("People") complaint is denied. Defendants have not met their burden to show the Attorney General's doctor-related claims are barred by the California safe harbor doctrine as set forth in Cel-Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co. (1999) 20 Cal.4th 163, 182–187, to the full extent they rest on alleged misrepresentations and omissions in the instructions for use ("IFUs") or product labeling. Judicial notice is granted as requested.
The People allege that defendants engaged in a long running campaign of deceptively marketing pelvic mesh devices to doctors in violation of California's consumer protection statutes. As the United States Supreme Court noted Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr (1996) 518 U.S. 470, 475, 116 S.Ct. 2240, 2245, 135 L.Ed.2d 700, "States tr