Wyeth

MEMORANDUM

Mary Moretti appeals from the district court’s dismissal of her claims against defendant PLIVA, Inc., and a grant of summary judgment to defendants Wyeth, Inc. and Schwartz Pharma, Inc. (together, Brand Defendants). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

I. The Brand Defendants

Before the district court, Moretti conceded entry of summary judgment on all of her claims against the Brand Defendants except for her claims based on: misrepresentation by omission (Count 5); constructive fraud (Count 6); negligent misrepresentation (Count 12); and fraud by concealment (Count 13). The district court properly concluded that Nevada law does not recognize Moretti’s claims.

Under Nevada law, a misrepresentation by omission is actionable only if the defendant was under a duty to disclose the relevant information. Dow Chem. Co. v. Mahlum, 114 Nev. 1468, 1486 , 970 P.2d 98 (1998). “The duty to disclose requires, at a minimum, some form of relationship between the parties.” Id. at 1487 , 970 P.2d 98 . Mahlum explicitly rejected concealment claims against Dow Chemical, stating that: “Dow Chemical had no duty to disclose to the Mahlums any superior knowledge it…