Sasha Dixon v. Allergan USA. Inc.

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-13222
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 0:14-cv-61091-RNS
SASHA DIXON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
ALLERGAN USA, INC.,
Defendant - Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(March 14, 2016)
Before TJOFLAT, MARCUS and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Plaintiff-Appellant Sasha Dixon appeals the district court’s dismissal with
prejudice of her fourth amended complaint against Defendant-Appellee Allergan
USA, Inc., for failing to plead a claim with the particularity required under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b). On appeal, Dixon argues that the district court erred
Case: 15-13222 Date Filed: 03/14/2016 Page: 1 of 5

-- 1 of 5 --

2
in dismissing the complaint because it misinterpreted her allegations. After
thorough review, we affirm.
We review de novo a district court’s order to dismiss a case for failing to
state a claim. Coventry First, LLC v. McCarty, 605 F.3d 865, 868-69 (11th Cir.
2010). We accept as true the facts as alleged in the complaint. United States ex
rel. Clausen v. Lab. Corp. of Am., Inc., 290 F.3d 1301, 1303 n.2 (11th Cir. 2002).
Because Rule 9(b) applies, Dixon “is not expected to actually prove [her]
allegations, and we defer to the properly pleaded allegations of the complaint. But
we cannot be left wondering whether a plaintiff has offered mere conjecture or a
specifically pleaded allegation on an essential element of the lawsuit.” Id. at 1313.
The relevant facts, as alleged in the complaint, are these. On October 7,
2011, Dixon read a marketing brochure bearing Allergan’s name and logo entitled,
“Your Weight-Loss Journey Begins with My Lap-Band Journey.” A Lap-Band is
a medical device manufactured by Allergan that wraps around the upper portion of
a patient’s stomach to reduce stomach size. Among other statements, the brochure
advertised the Lap-Band as “adjustable and reversible,” and “10 times safer than
gastric bypass.” That same day, a physician surgically implanted a Lap-Band
device into Dixon. Dixon had the Lap-Band adjusted two or three times after it
was implanted. On December 3, 2012, Dixon experienced severe pain and was
admitted to the emergency room. She lapsed into a coma until December 11, 2012,
Case: 15-13222 Date Filed: 03/14/2016 Page: 2 of 5

-- 2 of 5 --

3
and was hospitalized for approximately twenty days. Doctors determined that
Dixon’s stomach had turned black from lack of blood supply, rotted, and ruptured,
which disbursed her stomach contents throughout her body. Dixon alleges this was
caused by the erosion of her Lap-Band.
Dixon’s fourth amended complaint, filed June 11, 2015, alleges negligent
misrepresentation, fraud in the inducement, fraud in the performance, and
fraudulent misrepresentation stemming from the brochure’s promises of safety,
adjustability, and reversibility. For each count, the complaint alleges:
The [brochure’s] statements misled Plaintiff because the LAP-BAND
is not 10 times safer than gastric bypass. In fact, from the prospective
of outcomes, it has been shown that gastric bypass is more effective in
reducing morbidity and mortality of obesity when compared to the
LAP-BAND. Moreover, the LAP-BAND system is not “adjustable
and reversible” at any time. In fact, the LAP-BAND is designed to
stay within the patient for [the] rest of his/her life.
On July 16, 2015, the district court determined that Dixon failed to allege
how the brochure’s statements were untrue or misleading, and granted Allergan’s
motion to dismiss. This appeal follows.
Because each of Dixon’s claims sounds in fraud, she “must state with
particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b).
As we have explained:
Rule 9(b) is satisfied if the complaint sets forth (1) precisely what
statements were made in what documents or oral representations or
what omissions were made, and (2) the time and place of each such
statement and the person responsible for making (or, in the case of
Case: 15-13222 Date Filed: 03/14/2016 Page: 3 of 5

-- 3 of 5 --

4
omissions, not making) same, and (3) the content of such statements
and the manner in which they misled the plaintiff, and (4) what the
defendants obtained as a consequence of the fraud.
Tello v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 494 F.3d 956, 972 (11th Cir. 2007) (quotation
marks omitted).
In this case, the district court held that although “Dixon alleges two
misrepresentations by Allergan, neither is supported by facts showing the
misrepresentations’ falsity or how they are misleading.” We agree. Dixon simply
failed to plead “the manner in which [Allergan’s statements] misled” her. Tello,
494 F.3d at 972. Even assuming gastric bypass has been shown to be more
“effective” in reducing morbidity and mortality of obesity, as Dixon alleges, this
does not undermine Allergan’s claim that the Lap-Band is “safer than gastric
bypass.” Effectiveness and safety are separate metrics, and Dixon has not pled that
Allergan has made misleading statements that concern Lap-Band’s effectiveness.
As for Dixon’s claim that “safety” and “mortality” are tightly linked,
“mortality” must be read in context. Dixon’s complaint says that “from the
prospective of outcomes, it has been shown that gastric bypass is more effective in
reducing morbidity and mortality of obesity when compared to the LAP-BAND.”
“Mortality of obesity,” in the context of this sentence, can only be read as referring
to death caused by excessive body weight. The “safety” Dixon claims was
overpromised in Allergan’s brochure, meanwhile, plainly refers to health effects
Case: 15-13222 Date Filed: 03/14/2016 Page: 4 of 5

-- 4 of 5 --

5
resulting from the procedure itself. Thus, Dixon may be right that gastric bypass
may decrease the risk of death from obesity, relative to Lap-Band. But that does
not mean that Allergan’s safety statement is misleading if gastric bypass also
increases the relative risk of infection, internal bleeding, or other surgery-specific
ailments. In short, safety need not be correlated with effectiveness, and Dixon has
pled nothing to demonstrate any inconsistency.1
Similarly, even if the Lap-Band is designed to stay within the patient’s body
for the rest of her life, as Dixon alleges, this does not render misleading Allergan’s
statement that the Lap-Band is adjustable and reversible. It is entirely consistent
that a medical device may be designed for permanence, but capable of removal
when necessary. Dixon’s objection to the claim of adjustability is also undermined
by the acknowledgement in her complaint that her own Lap-Band was adjusted “2
or 3 times.”
Because Dixon failed to plead her claims with the specificity required by
Rule 9(b), the district court did not err in dismissing her complaint.
AFFIRMED.
1 The fact of Dixon’s injury is also insufficient to contradict Allergan’s statement of relative
safety. That a Lap-Band may be more safe than gastric bypass does not guarantee every Lap-
Band recipient a safe (or effective) result.
Case: 15-13222 Date Filed: 03/14/2016 Page: 5 of 5

-- 5 of 5 --