Ilarraza v. Medtronic, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that where “a plaintiff relies on nothing more tha[n CGMPs] in support of a parallel cause of action, preemption bars the claim”
• explaining that, where plaintiff relied upon only CGMPs requirements to state a parallel claim, the claims were preempted “because no regulation relied upon refers specifically to the medical device at issue”
• “[W]here, as here, a plaintiff relies on nothing more that [sic] CGMPs in support of a parallel cause of action, preemption bars the claim.”
• “Since these regulations are open to a particular manufacturer’s interpretation, allowing them to serve as a basis for a claim would lead to differing safety requirements that might emanate from various lawsuits.”
• “This court is not the first to hold that the general pleading of CGMP violations is insufficient to state a ‘plausible’ parallel claim not subject to dismissal on the ground of preemption.”
• noting plaintiff only alleged violations of broad federal CGMP regulations

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).