Commonwealth v. Diaz, M.

How courts have described this case

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

• reaffirming that FDCA does not preempt an allegation that a 5 supplement increased risk of all-cause mortality
• explaining 16 that amendment is futile if the amendments could not “withstand dismissal as a matter of law”
• reversing dismissal of the plaintiff's complaint on preemption grounds where the plaintiff - 24 - alleged that glucosamine does not have the claimed effect on the human body's structure or function
• finding product claim to be a 19 structure/function claim when it stated, “support for cardiovascular health (facially a 20 structure/function claim)” withoutclaiming to prevent a cardiovascular disease (alteration and 21 citations omitted)
• accepting as true a plaintiff’s allegation that certain glucosamine studies directly contradicted a manufacturer’s representations regarding joint health because the studies themselves were “not attached to the pleadings or otherwise part of the record”
• leave to amend should be denied if “no amendment would allow the complaint to withstand dismissal as a matter of law.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).