Judge Randy Rhodes, Case Number: 19STCV30425, Date: 2023-04-26 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Randy Rhodes, Case: 19STCV30425, Date: 2023-04-26 Tentative Ruling

Counsel wishing to submit on a tentative ruling may inform the clerk or courtroom assisant in North Valley Department F51, 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311, at (818) 407-2251. Please be aware that unless all parties submit, the matter will still be called for hearing and may be argued by any appearing/non-submitting parties. If the matter is submitted on the court's tentative ruling by all parties, counsel for moving party shall give notice of ruling. This may be done by incorporating verbatim the court's tentative ruling. The tentative ruling may be extracted verbatim by copying and specially pasting, as unformatted text, from the Los Angeles Superior Court’s website, http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org. All hearings on law and motion and other calendar matters are generally NOT transcribed by a court reporter unless one is provided by the party(ies).

Case Number: 19STCV30425 Hearing Date: April 26, 2023 Dept: F51

Dept. F-51

Date: 4/26/23

Case #19STCV30425

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Motion Filed: 2/8/23

MOVING PARTY: Defendants Johnson & Johnson, Inc. and DePuy Senthes Products, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”)

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Stefanie Gabler (“Plaintiff”)

NOTICE: OK

RELIEF REQUESTED: Defendants move for summary judgment as to Plaintiff’s entire Complaint.

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is granted.

BACKGROUND

This is a products liability action wherein Plaintiff alleges that a defective ventriculoperitoneal brain shunt device (“CERTAS valve”) was placed in her, which later caused her to develop hydrocephalus and brain injuries. (Compl. ¶ 11.)

On 8/27/19, Plaintiff filed her complaint against defendants Providence Health System Southern California; Providence Holy Cross Medical Center; DePuy Synthes Products, Inc.; Integra LifeSciences Corporation; and Johnson & Johnson, Inc., asserting causes of action for (1) Negligence; and (2) Strict Products Liability. On 1/19/21, pursuant to stipulation, Plaintiff dismissed all claims from the action except for manufacturing defect.

On 2/8/23, Defendants filed the instant Motion for Summary Judgment. No opposition has been filed to date, and on 4/13/23, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Non-Opposition to Defendants’ motion.

ANALYSIS

Legal Standard

The function of a motion for summary judgment or adjudication is to allow a determination as to whether an opposing party cannot show evidentiary support for a pleading or claim and to enable an order of summary dismissal without the need for trial. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843.) Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (c) “requires the trial judge to grant summary judgment if all the evidence submitted, and ‘all inferences reasonably deducible from the evidence’ and uncontradicted by other inferences or evidence, show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” (Adler v. Manor Healthcare Corp. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1110, 1119.) “The function of the pleadings in a motion for summary judgment is to delimit the scope of the issues; the function of the affidavits or declarations is to disclose whether there is any triable issue of fact within the issues delimited by the pleadings.” (Juge v. County of Sacramento (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 59, 65, citing FPI Development, Inc. v. Nakashima (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 367, 381–382.)

As to each claim as framed by the complaint, the defendant moving for summary judgment must satisfy the initial burden of proof by presenting facts to negate an essential element, or to establish a defense. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2); Scalf v. D. B. Log Homes, Inc. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1510, 1519–1520.)

Once the defendant has met that burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to that cause of action or a defense thereto. To establish a triable issue of material fact, the party opposing the motion must produce substantial responsive evidence. (Sangster v. Paetkau (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 151, 163.) Courts “liberally construe the evidence in support of the party opposing summary judgment and resolve doubts concerning the evidence in favor of that party.” (Dore v. Arnold Worldwide, Inc. (2006) 39 Cal.4th 384, 389.)

Analysis

Here, Defendants argue that “neither defendant is a proper party to this action and all claims brought against them should be dismissed.” (MSJ 1:7–8.) With respect to moving defendant Johnson & Johnson, Inc. (“J&J”), Defendants assert that J&J is a holding company and “has never developed, manufactured, marketed, tested, inspected, distributed, or sold CERTAS valve [devices].” (Id. at 2:9, 16–17.) In support of this contention, Defendants proffer the sworn declaration of J&J’s Assistant Secretary. (Ex. D to MSJ.) As Defendants argue, courts have held that a parent holding company such as J&J “cannot be subject to liability in product liability cases involving medical devices and pharmaceuticals.” (MSJ 5:5–7.) Moreover, Plaintiff has not alleged in her Complaint that J&J “designed, manufactured, or sold the CERTAS plus.” (Id. at 5:17–18.)

Furthermore, Defendants contend that defendant “DePuy Products is an indirect subsidiary of J&J,” but that the two are separate legal entities with separate corporate identities. (Id. at 2:19, 3:9–10.) Moreover, “in October 2017, DePuy Synthes sold the Codman neurosurgery product line, including the CERTAS plus, to [nonmoving defendant] Integra LifeSciences Holding Corporation.” (Id. at 3:14–16.) “With the sale of Codman in October 2017, Integra explicitly assumed all DePuy Synthes’ liabilities for lawsuits or claims relating to the design, manufacture, and sale of Codman products, including the CERTAS plus.” (Id. at 3:17–19.) In support of these contentions, Defendants proffer the sworn declaration of a J&J employee and Assistant General Counsel. (Ex. E to MSJ.)

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Defendants have satisfied their initial burden to provide evidence to show that they are not liable to Plaintiff for the conduct alleged in her Complaint. As Plaintiff has confirmed her non-opposition to the instant motion, the Court therefore finds that there is no triable issue of material fact as to these issues, and need not reach Defendants’ arguments regarding vicarious liability/agency. Accordingly, the unopposed motion is granted.

CONCLUSION

The motion is granted.