Raymond J Collette v. Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 RAYMOND J COLLETTE, Case No. 16-cv-01034-JD

8 Plaintiff,

ORDER RE MOTIONS TO DISMISS

v. 9 Re: Dkt. Nos. 95, 96 10 WYETH PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., et al., 11 Defendants.

12 13 The pending motions to dismiss go to the third amended complaint, Dkt. No. 94 (“TAC”), 14 which is plaintiff Collette’s fourth attempt to state a plausible complaint.1 Collette compounded 15 the burden on defendants and the Court by making amendments that violated the prior dismissal 16 order. The TAC again falls below the plausibility required by Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil 17 Procedure. Defendants’ motions to dismiss the TAC, Dkt. Nos. 95, 96, are granted, this time with 18 prejudice in light of Collette’s many opportunities to plead an actionable claim. 19 DISCUSSION 20 I. OFF-LABEL MARKETING: SECOND, THIRD AND FOURTH CLAIMS 21 The parties’ familiarity with the record is assumed, and the background and discussion in 22 the prior motion to dismiss orders will not be repeated here. Dkt.…