Annette T. New v. Armour Pharmaceutical Company

Good Law
58 F.3d 445·95 Daily Journal DAR 8185·1995 WL 368871·1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 15329·95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4766
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJune 22, 199593-56023California3,925 words

Opinion

Opinion

Noonan, J.

Annette T. New, the successor in interest of Joseph J. New, (New), deceased, appeals from the judgment of the district court dismissing New’s action against Armour Pharmaceutical Company (Armour). The single issue on appeal is when the California statute of limitations begins to run on causes of action for the wrongful infliction of AIDS. Holding that the issue cannot be decided on the pleadings, we return the case to the district court.

PROCEEDINGS

On January 19, 1993, New, a citizen of California, filed suit against Armour in Los Angeles County Superior Court. Armour, a Delaware corporation, removed the case to the federal district court on the ground of diversity of citizenship. New alleged the following:

New was born October 22, 1935. In his sixth year he experienced episodes of abnormal bleeding, and in 1961 he was diagnosed as a Type A hemophiliac; he was thereafter successfully treated with blood-coagulating products.

Armour and three other companies were manufacturers and marketers of an agent for the treatment of Type A hemophilia known generically as Factor VIII. Factor VIII is a concentrated, freeze-dried form of coagulating human blood protein and is manufactured…

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.