Charles C. Rice, Jr. v. Genentech, Inc.

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-11076
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:10-cv-03631-TWT
CHARLES C. RICE, JR.,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff-Appellant,
JANE RICE,
lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff,
versus
GENENTECH, INC.,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
________________________
(October 15, 2012)
Case: 12-11076 Date Filed: 10/15/2012 Page: 1 of 3

-- 1 of 3 --

Before TJOFLAT, CARNES and WILSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Charles C. Rice, Jr., the appellant, has had neovascular age-related macular1
degeneration for over fifty years. On June 25, 2007, at age 86, on Rice’s first visit
with his current opthamologist, the doctor diagnosed Rice with “end-stage macular
degeneration.” In July and, again, August 2008, he injected Rice’s right eye with
Lucentis, a medication manufactured by Genentech, Inc., the appellee. In June
2009, he determined that Rice had lost all visual acuity in his right eye, attributing
the loss to intraocular pressure. In August 2010, Rice, proceeding pro se, sued
Genentech in Georgia Superior Court, claiming that Lucentis caused his loss of
vision and seeking damages on theories of negligence per se, misrepresentation
and breach of express and implied warranty.
Genentech removed the case to the District Court because the parties are of
diverse citizenship and the amount in controversy exceeded the jurisdictional
amount. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. At the conclusion of discovery, the court, in an2
Rice’s daughter, Jane Rice (“Jane”), joined her father as a plaintiff in filing his1
complaint, but was subsequently dismissed from the lawsuit. Accordingly, we refer only to Rice
as the plaintiff.
Although Rice’s complaint did not allege that the amount in controversy exceeded the2
sum of $75,000, that it exceeded such amount is obvious given the nature of Rice’s alleged
injuries.
2
Case: 12-11076 Date Filed: 10/15/2012 Page: 2 of 3

-- 2 of 3 --

order entered on January 23, 2012, granted Genentech’s motion for summary
judgment, concluding that Rice “presented no expert opinion showing that
Lucentis caused his harm,” and entered judgment accordingly. Rice now appeals.
Rice argues that the summary judgment should be vacated because the
District Court abused its discretion in denying his discovery motions and that the
record contained expert opinion evidence showing that Lucentis caused his vision
loss and that the Lucentis labeling information was inadequate. We have carefully
considered Rice’s arguments for reversal and conclude for the reasons the District
Court gave in its January 23, 2012 order that Genentech was entitled to summary
judgment.
AFFIRMED.
3
Case: 12-11076 Date Filed: 10/15/2012 Page: 3 of 3

-- 3 of 3 --