TWM v. American Medical Systems, Inc.
| Decision Date | 19 April 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 95-30107-RV.,95-30107-RV. |
| Parties | T.W.M. and S.M., Plaintiffs, v. AMERICAN MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Florida |
Samuel W. Bearman, Cetti, McGraw, Bearman & Williams, Pensacola, FL, for plaintiffs.
Gordon James, III, Conrad, Scherer, James & Jenne, Fort Lauderdale, FL and Robert P. Gaines, Beggs & Lane, Pensacola, FL, for defendant.
Pending is the motion of defendant American Medical Systems, Inc. ("A.M.S.") to dismiss Counts II, III, IV, VI, and VII of the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and to strike the demand for punitive damages. (doc. 4).
The following factual allegations are all contained in the complaint. Prior to January 1990, plaintiff T.W.M. was impotent. During January 1990, T.W.M. had a penile implant surgically placed into his genitalia. The implant was manufactured by defendant A.M.S. The device implanted into T.W.M. was defective at the time of implantation due to negligent design, assembling, or manufacturing. By March 1992, the implant cylinders had eroded into the urethra, and as a result, the implant had to be removed in March 1992. As a result of the failure of the penile prosthesis, T.W.M. has suffered bodily injury resulting in past and future medical expenses, loss of earnings, pain and suffering, mental anguish, and loss capacity for the enjoyment of life. Plaintiff S.M, T.W.M's wife, has suffered the loss of his consortium.
The plaintiffs filed this seven-count complaint on January 4, 1995, in the Circuit Court in and for Escambia County, Florida. Count I alleges negligent design and manufacture; Count II alleges breach of implied warranty of merchantability; Count III alleges breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose; Count IV alleges breach of express warranty; Count V alleges strict liability; Count VI alleges a violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act; and Count VII alleges violation of the Florida Food, Drug, Cosmetic, and Household Products Act. All seven counts demand compensatory and punitive damages.
The defendant timely removed the case to this court, and has now moved to dismiss Counts II, III, IV, VI, and VII of the complaint for failure to state a cause of action upon which relief may be granted, and to strike the demand for punitive damages from all counts of the complaint. The plaintiffs have not responded to the motion, which alone may be grounds for granting the motion. See Local Rule 7.1(C) (eff. April 1, 1995) (formerly Local Rule 6(C)).
A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim cannot be granted unless the complaint alleges no set of facts, which, if proved, would entitle the plaintiff to relief. See, e.g., Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 1686, 40 L.Ed.2d 90, 96 (1974); Blackston v. State of Alabama, 30 F.3d 117, 120 (11th Cir.1994). On a motion to dismiss, the court must accept all the alleged facts as true and find all inferences from those facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See, e.g., Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319, 92 S.Ct. 1079, 31 L.Ed.2d 263 (1972); Hunnings v. Texaco, Inc., 29 F.3d 1480, 1483 (11th Cir.1994). However, regardless of the alleged facts, Rule 12(b)(6) does authorize a court to dismiss a complaint on a dispositive issue of law. Marshall County Bd. of Educ. v. Marshall County Gas Dist., 992 F.2d 1171, 1174 (11th Cir.1992).
The defendant raises a number of grounds in support of its motion to dismiss. I will address each of these in turn. In this diversity jurisdiction case, Florida law applies with respect to each of them.
Counts II alleges breach of an implied warranty of merchantability. Count III alleges breach of an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose. Count IV alleges breach of an express warranty. The law of Florida is that to recover for the breach of a warranty, either express or implied, the plaintiff must be in privity of contract with the defendant. Kramer v. Piper Aircraft Corp., 520 So.2d 37 (Fla.1988); West v. Caterpillar Tractor Co., 336 So.2d 80 (Fla. 1976). "Privity is required in order to recover damages from the seller of a product for breach of express or implied warranties." Intergraph Corp. v. Stearman, 555 So.2d 1282, 1283 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). Elizabeth N. v. Riverside Group, Inc., 585 So.2d 376, 378 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). See also Spolski General Contractor, Inc. v. Jett-Aire Corp. Aviation Management of Central Fla., Inc., 637 So.2d 968, 970 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994).
Plaintiffs' warranty claims in Counts II, III, and IV are all brought under Florida's version of Article 2 (Sales) of the Uniform Commercial Code. Ch. 672, Fla. Stat. (1993). A plaintiff who purchases a product, but does not buy it directly from the defendant, is not in privity with that defendant. 1 White & Summers, Uniform Commercial Code § 11-2, at 528 (3rd ed. 1988). The complaint does not allege that the plaintiffs purchased the penile implant directly from the defendant, or that they contracted with the defendant. Because the complaint does not allege privity of contract, it fails to state a cause of action for breach of express or implied warranties under Chapter 672, Florida Statutes. Further, the complaint fails to allege the essential elements of a breach of either an implied warranty of merchantability or an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose. Accordingly, the defendant's motion to dismiss Counts II, III, and IV of the complaint is GRANTED, and they are DISMISSED.
Count VI alleges that the defendant's actions violated Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act §§ 501.201-501.213, Fla.Stat. (1993). Count VI alleges that "plaintiff T.M.W. suffered bodily injury and resulting pain and suffering, disability, disfigurement, mental anguish, loss of capacity for enjoyment of life, expense of hospitalization, medical and nursing care, and treatment, loss of earnings, loss of ability to earn money," and that "plaintiff S.M. suffered the loss of service, aid, comfort, and society of her husband." In short, plaintiff seeks damages in this Court for personal injuries. Since the Act explicitly states that it does not apply to "a claim for personal injury or death or a claim for damage to property other than the property that is the subject of the consumer transaction" § 501.212(3) Fla.Stat. (1993), the defendant's motion to dismiss Count VI is GRANTED, and it is DISMISSED.
Count VII alleges that the defendant violated Florida's Drug and Cosmetics Act §§ 499.001-499.081, Fla.Stat. (1993). The defendant argues that the plaintiffs, as private citizens, do not have standing to pursue a remedy under the Act, since the Act contains no provision for a private cause of action.
The question, then, is whether the Act should be construed as creating an implied private cause of action. The Supreme Court of Florida has held that "legislative intent, rather than the duty to benefit a class of individuals, should be the primary factor considered in determining whether a cause of action exists when a statute does not expressly provide for one." Murthy v. N. Sinha Corp., 644 So.2d 983, 985 (Fla.1994). "In general, a statute that does not purport to establish civil liability, but merely makes provision to secure the safety or welfare of the public as an entity, will not be construed as establishing civil liability." Id. (citations omitted).
The stated purpose of the Florida Drug and Cosmetic Act is to: "safeguard the public health and promote the public welfare by protecting the public from injury by product use ... involving drugs, devices,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Darisse v. Nest Labs, Inc.
...Ohio, Illinois, and Texas do not. See Flory v. Silvercrest Indus. Inc., 633 P.2d 383, 387 (Ariz. 1981); T.W.M. v. Am. Med. Sys., 886 F. Supp. 842, 844 (N.D. Fla. 1995); McMahon v. Advance Stores Co., Inc., 705 S.E. 131, 141 (W.Va. 2010); Texas Processed Plastics, Inc. v. Gray Enters., Inc.,......
-
Menges v. Depuy Motech, Inc.
...any contact whatsoever, with Defendant or any person employed by or representing Defendant. Compare T.W.M. and S.M. v. American Medical Systems, Inc., 886 F.Supp. 842, 844 (N.D.Fla.1995); Baker, 35 F.Supp.2d 875. Accordingly, summary judgment is proper as to this D. COUNT V — FAILURE TO WAR......
-
Garcia v. Kashi Co., Case No. 12–21678–CIV.
...privity of contract with the defendant in order to recover on express and implied warranty claims. (Id. (citing T.W.M. v. Am. Med. Sys., Inc., 886 F.Supp. 842, 844 (N.D.Fla.1995) ; Weiss v. Johansen, 898 So.2d 1009, 1011 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.2005) ).) Defendants further argue that the express w......
-
In re Nexus 6P Prods. Liab. Litig., Case No. 17–cv–02185–BLF
...of contract with the defendant." Hill v. Hoover Co. , 899 F.Supp.2d 1259, 1266 (N.D. Fla. 2012) (quoting T.W.M. v. Am. Med. Sys., Inc. , 886 F.Supp. 842, 844 (N.D. Fla. 1995) ). Other courts have declined to apply the privity requirement when the seller is unlikely to have knowledge about t......
-
Florida. Practice Text
...per FLA. STAT. § 501.212(b), the Act “does not apply to covered acts by licensed real estate brokers”); T.W.M. v. Am. Med. Sys., 886 F. Supp. 842, 844 (N.D. Fla. 1995) (dismissing a claim brought under the Act because the plaintiff sought damages for personal injury contrary to the bar agai......
-
The unexplored territory of unfairness in Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.
...that they could come into the hands of small children. [26] FLA. STAT. [sections] 501.212(3); T.W.M. v. American Medical Systems, Inc., 886 F. Supp. 842, 844 (N.D. Fla. 1995). [27] Orkin, 849 F.2d at 1363. [28] See also Urling, 468 So. 2d 451. But see FLA. STAT. [sections] 501.2075 (civil p......
-
Pleading punitive damages in federal court: must one comply with F.S. 768.72?
...(Kovachevich, J.). [19] See In re Edgewater 154 B.R. at 338 (Killian, J.). [20] See T.W.M. & S.M. v. American Med. Systems, Inc., 886 F. Supp. 842, 845 (N.D. Fla. 1995) (Vinson, [21] See Teel, 953 F. Supp. at 1536 (Hurley, J.); Sanders v. Mayor's Jewelers, Inc., 942 F. Supp. 571, 576 (S......
-
The magic of privity in express product warranty claims: a plaintiff's perspective.
...privity between the injured party and the supplier. Bigg Wynn relies heavily on language from T.W.M. v. American Medical Systems, Inc., 886 F. Supp. 842 (N.D. Fla. 1995). In that federal case, the plaintiff was injured from a defective penile implant which plaintiff did not purchase from th......