Arthur Drager v. PLIVA USA

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a court “does not resolve the merits of the plaintiff's claim or any disputes of fact” under Rule 12(c)
• holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in denying motion to amend when plaintiff did not file motion to amend or proposed amended complaint
• concluding any difference between the risk-utility and consumer expectation approaches to evaluating “the unreasonableness of the danger of a product” was “immaterial”
• explaining that the Court may affirm on any grounds apparent from the record
• “[Mensing and Bartlett] establish that under the FDCA a generic may not unilaterally change its labeling or change its design or formulation.”
• the complaint was filed before either Mensing or Bartlett, and the trial court denied plaintiff leave to amend after Mensing

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).