Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Baldonado v. Wyeth

June 15, 2012

BALDONADO
v.
WYETH



Name of Assigned Judge Sitting Judge if Other or Magistrate Judge Amy J. St. Eve than Assigned Judge

CASE TITLE

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

The Court denies Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff's Fraud, Misrepresentation, and Express Warranty Claims [83] in its entirety.

O[ For further details see text below.] Notices mailed by Judicial staff.

STATEMENT

Before the Court is Defendant Wyeth's Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff's Fraud, Misrepresentation, and Express Warranty Claims. (R. 83.) For the reasons explained below, the motion is denied in its entirety.

BACKGROUND

From May of 1996 until September of 1998, Plaintiff Jo Belle Baldonado took Prempro, a prescription hormone therapy medication. Plaintiff had previously taken Provera, but switched to Prempro to help alleviate certain menopausal symptoms. Plaintiff's prescribing physicians were Dr. Terestia Avila and Dr. Mani Akkineni. In or about September of 1998, Plaintiff was diagnosed with breast cancer and stopped taking Prempro at the direction of Dr. Avila. Alleging that Prempro caused her breast cancer, Plaintiff filed the present civil action against Defendant and others. The Court presumes familiarity with the underlying factual allegations and procedural history of this litigation, and incorporates herein by reference the background information set forth in the Court's written opinions dated May 31, 2012 (R. 229), May 17, 2012 (R. 205), May 7, 2012 (R. 179), and March 6, 2012 (R. 125).

Courtroom Deputy KF

Initials:

LEGAL STANDARD

Summary judgment is appropriate "if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A genuine dispute as to any material fact exists if "the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 2510, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202 (1986). In considering summary judgment motions, "facts must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party only if there is a 'genuine' dispute as to those facts." Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380, 127 S. Ct. 1769, 167 L. Ed. 2d 686 (2007). The party seeking summary judgment has the initial burden of establishing the lack of a genuine dispute as to any material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1986). After "a properly supported motion for summary judgment is made, the adverse party 'must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.'" Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255 (quotation omitted).

ANALYSIS

Defendant moves for partial summary judgment on Plaintiff's claims of fraud (R. 1, Am. Compl. ¶¶ 115-18); negligent misrepresentation (id. ¶¶ 108-112); and breach of express warranty (id. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.