Henderson v. Pfizer, Inc.

MEMORANDUM **

I.

Pro Se Plaintiff Sascha Henderson claims that an interuterine device (“IUD”) made by a subsidiary of Defendant Pfizer, Inc. became imbedded in the lining of her uterus, causing her pain and making her infertile. In March 2002, more than 16 years after it was implanted, she had surgery to remove the IUD, and nearly three years later, filed this products liability action on January 14, 2005. After the case was transferred from the Southern District of New York, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted summary judgment to Pfizer, concluding that the action was barred by California’s two-year statute of limitations. The court also held that Henderson had provided no competent expert evidence that the IUD caused her injuries.

Henderson timely appeals both of these rulings. She also claims the district court (1) erred in failing to advise her of summary judgment procedures and denying her post-summary judgment motion for leave to amend her complaint, and (2) demonstrated bias against her because she appeared pro se. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 1332, and we affirm.

II.

We review de novo the district court’s…