Motus

Motus v. Pfizer Inc.

Good Law
196 F. Supp. 2d 984·2001 WL 1792433·2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24281
United States District Court, Central District of CaliforniaDecember 20, 2001CV00-298 AHMCalifornia7,888 words

Opinion

Opinion

Matz, J.

ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO DEFENDANT

I.

INTRODUCTION

Six days after Dr. Gerald Trostler prescribed Zoloft to Victor Motus, Mr. Motus took his life. His widow, Flora Motus, sued Zoloft’s manufacturer, Pfizer Inc., for failing to adequately warn that Zoloft can cause those who ingest it to commit suicide. She alleges five claims: (1) “wrongful death/negligence”; (2) strict liability; (3) “survival action”; (4) fraud; and (5) breach of warranty. Each of Ms. Motus’s claims is premised on the allegation that Pfizer’s “package insert and marketing materials do not warn ... that [Zoloft] can cause some people to think and act in violent or suicidal ways.” First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) ¶ 20. She alleges that Pfizer’s failure to warn of this risk caused her husband to commit suicide. FAC ¶ 28(d) (wrongful death/negligence claim); ¶ 38 (strict liability); ¶ 50-52 (fraud); ¶ 59 (breach of warranty).

Pfizer now moves for summary judgment on the ground that Ms. Motus cannot prove that its alleged failure to warn or inadequate warning caused her injury. Pfizer argues that Ms. Motus has no evidence that Dr. Trostler would have acted differently had adequate warnings been provided.…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.