Degelmann

Degelmann v. Advanced Medical Optics, Inc.

Good Law
659 F.3d 835·2011 WL 4470641·2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 19706
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitSeptember 28, 201110-15222California2,225 words

Opinion

Opinion

Noonan, J.

Alexis Degelmann and Joseph Lin (“Degelmann and Lin”) represent a putative class (“the class”) of purchasers of contact lens solution. They appeal the district court’s order granting summary judgment for the defendant, Advanced Medical Optics, Inc. (“AMO”). They brought suit alleging AMO violated California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), Cal. Bus. & Prof.Code § 17200 et seq., and False Advertising Law (“FAL”), id. at § 17500 et seq., by marketing Complete MoisturePlus (“MoisturePlus”) as a product that cleans and disinfects lenses. The district court ruled that Degelmann and Lin lack standing. AMO argues that the ruling was not error, and that even if it was, the suit was properly dismissed because the class’ claims are preempted under 21 U.S.C. § 360k(a) of the Medical Devices Amendments of 1976 (“MDA”), 21 U.S.C. § 360c et seq.

The district court had jurisdiction pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (d)(2)(A). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

BACKGROUND

Between 2003 and 2007, AMO marketed and sold MoisturePlus. In May 2007, the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and…

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.