Summary
dismissing plaintiffs' claims for negligence, fraud, and misrepresentation, inter alia, because of the exclusivity of the LPLA
Summary of this case from Hilton v. Atlas Roofing Corporation of MississippiOpinion
Civil Action No. 03-132
March 28, 2003
ORDER REASONS
Before the Court is the Motion of Defendant Bayer Corporation to Dismiss Plaintiffs' causes of action for negligence, fraud, misrepresentation. The motion also seeks to dismiss plaintiffs' claims for redhibition to the extent that plaintiff seeks non-economic damages and plaintiffs' request for punitive damages pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This matter was set for hearing before the Court on February 19, 2003. To date, the plaintiffs have failed to file an opposition to this motion. For the following reasons, Bayer Corporation's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs filed suit against Bayer Corporation and Walgreen Louisiana Co., Inc. for damages suffered as the result of using the over-the-counter medication, Alka Seltzer Plus. The complaint alleged causes of action sounding in negligence, fraud, misrepresentation, and redhibition in addition to claims under the Louisiana Products Liability Act ("LPLA"), LA. REV. STAT. ann. § 9:2800.51-60. The complaint also sought punitive damages from the defendants for their alleged malice and/or gross negligence. Bayer Corp. now moves to dismiss those claims for which no right of recovery exists under Louisiana law.
II. ANALYSIS
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permit a defendant to seek dismissal of a complaint based on the "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). When considering a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), a district court should construe the complaint liberally in favor of the plaintiff, assuming all factual allegations to be true. See Leleux v. United States, 178 F.3d 750, 754 (5th Cir. 1999). A complaint may not be dismissed "unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." Id. (quoting Lowrey v. Texas A M Univ. Sys., 117 F.3d 242, 247 (5th Cir. 1997)).
In this diversity case, the Court is bound to apply principles of Louisiana law. The LPLA sets forth the "exclusive theories of liability [in Louisiana] for manufacturers for damage caused by their products." LA. REV. STAT. ann. § 9:2800.52. See also Jefferson v. Lead Inds. Ass'n Inc., 106 F.3d 1245, 1251 (5th Cir. 1997) (holding that the LPLA's exclusivity provisions excluded claims for negligence, fraud by misrepresentation, market share liability, breach of implied warranty of fitness, and civil conspiracy). Furthermore, the plaintiffs' claims for redhibition are viable only for economic losses and do not include personal injury damages. Id. Finally, plaintiffs also ask for punitive damages in their complaint. However, Louisiana law does not permit punitive damages, except where expressly authorized by statute. See International Harvester Credit v. Scale. 518 So.2d 1039, 1041 (La. 1988). Since neither the LPLA nor the Civil Code articles on redhibition permit recovery of punitive damages, these claims must also fail.
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the plaintiffs' claims for negligence, fraud, misrepresentation, non-economic damages in a redhibition claim, and punitive damages lack any basis to maintain a viable cause of action. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that defendant Bayer Corp.'s Motion to Dismiss these claims be GRANTED.