green
Positive treatment
Trending · 63 recent citers
Quoted verbatim 5×
38.9 score
“because the doctor 19 testified that he did not read the warning label that accompanied zoloft or rely on 20 information provided by pfizer's detail men before prescribing the drug to mr. motus, the 21 adequacy of pfizer's warnings is irrelevant to the disposition of this case.”
Treatment trajectory · 2004 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2004
2015
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 48 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Colbath v. Merck & Co., Inc.
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
because the doctor 19 testified that he did not read the warning label that accompanied zoloft or rely on 20 information provided by pfizer's detail men before prescribing the drug to mr. motus, the 21 adequacy of pfizer's warnings is irrelevant to the disposition of this case.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Fussy v. RTI Surgical
is obligated to warn doctors, not 10 patients, of potential side-effects associated with its pharmaceutical products
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Hilda Munoz v. American Medical Systems, Inc.
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
may prevail in its motion for summary 2 judgment if has failed to adduce evidence that 3 would have acted differently had provided an adequate warning . . . .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Canty v. DePuy Orthopaedics Inc.
The court reasoned that “no reasonable jury could conclude from 2 [that] testimony that” the plaintiff’s physician “would have become aware of any stronger 3 warnings[.] And as we have explained in a similar situation …, when a plaintiff cannot show that 4 the prescribing physician would have learned about a stronger warning in the first instance, there 5 cannot be a causal nexus between the allegedly inadequate warning and the plaintiff’s injury.” Id. 6 (citing Motus v. Pfizer, Inc., 358 F.3d 659, 661 (9th Cir. 2004)). 7 However, Himes’ physician testified that he did pay atte…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
(PS) Holcomb v. Pfizer Inc.
Therefore, a complaint will not 6 demonstrate proof of causation “if stronger warnings would not have altered the conduct of the 7 prescribing physician.” Motus v. Pfizer Inc. (Roerig Div.), 358 F.3d 659, 661 (9th Cir. 2004). 8 Additionally, Judge de Alba noted that fail-to-warn claims require allegations that can 9 overcome federal preemption issues.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Kinnee v. TEI Biosciences Inc.
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
In so doing, “[b]ecause this is a diversity action,” the 2 Court will “apply California substantive law and federal rules of procedure.” Motus v. 3 Pfizer Inc., 358 F.3d 659, 660 (9th Cir. 2004). 4 A. Boilerplate Language 5 Defendants first contend that Plaintiff’s FAC uses “boilerplate” language irrelevant 6 to SurgiMend.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
(PS) Holcomb v. Pfizer Inc.
Therefore, a complaint 19 will not demonstrate proof of causation “if stronger warnings would not have altered the conduct 20 of the prescribing physician.” Motus v. Pfizer Inc. (Roerig Div.), 358 F.3d 659, 661 (9th Cir. 21 2004); see also Tapia v. Davol, Inc., 116 F. Supp. 3d 1149, 1158 (S.D.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Laron v. Wright Medical Technology, Inc.
(Id.) The Court agrees with Plaintiff as to both arguments. 3 Because failure-to-warn claims must ultimately prove “not only that no warning 4 was provided or the warning was inadequate, but also that the inadequacy or absence 5 of the warning caused the plaintiff’s injury,” such a claim will not survive summary 6 judgment if “stronger warnings would not have altered the conduct of the prescribing 7 physician.” Wendell v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC, 858 F.3d 1227, 1238 (9th Cir. 2017) 8 (applying California law and quoting Motus v. Pfizer Inc., 196 F.Supp.2d 984, 991 (C.D. 9 Cal. 2001 ) and…
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Parks v. Ethicon, Inc.
(3×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
“Where a physician did not read the manufacturer’s product 21 warnings, there is no causal connection on the failure to warn claim as a matter of law.” 22 Id. (citing Motus, 358 F.3d at 661). 23 Although Defendants contend that summary adjudication is warranted under the 24 learned intermediary doctrine because Plaintiff’s physician “knew the risk of Gynemesh 25 PS” and “did not rely on the Instructions for Use of the Gynemesh PS in prescribing the 26 27 28 1 The Parties agree that California substantive law applies.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Andren v. Alere, Inc.
Motus v. Pfizer, Inc., 196 F.Supp.2d 984, 991 (C.D.Cal.2001); Motus v. Pfizer Inc., 358 F.3d 659, 661 (9th Cir.2004) (“[A] product defect claim based on insufficient warnings cannot survive summary judgment if stronger warnings would not have altered the conduct of the prescribing physician.”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Tapia v. Davol, Inc.
Motus v. Pfizer, Inc., 196 F.Supp.2d 984, 991 (C.D.Cal.2001); Motus v. Pfizer Inc., 358 F.3d 659, 661 (9th Cir.2004) (“[A] product defect claim based on insufficient warnings cannot survive summary judgment. - if stronger warnings would not have altered the conduct of the prescribing physician.”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Sanchez v. Boston Scientific Corp.
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Summary judgment is inappropriate where there is evidence that “stronger warnings would ... have altered the conduct of the prescribing physician.” Motus v. Pfizer, Inc., 358 F.3d 659, 661 (9th Cir.2004).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
D'Agnese v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp.
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See id.; Motus v. Pfizer, Inc., 358 F.3d 659, 661 (9th Cir.2004) (“a product defect claim based on insufficient warnings cannot survive summary judgment if stronger warnings would not have altered the conduct of the prescribing physician.”) It is Plaintiffs’ burden to establish proof that stronger warnings would have changed Mr. D’Agnese’s medical treatment.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Phelps v. Wyeth, Inc.
Motus, 358 F.3d 659, 660 (9th Cir.2004): -Thus, this case is not instructive in analyzing plaintiffs’ Oregon law claim. .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Johnson v. Medtronic, Inc.
See, e.g., Smith v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 232 Fed.Appx. 780, 784 (10th Cir. 2007) (Oklahoma law; expert testimony concerning inadequacy of warning in owner’s manual for garage door opener properly excluded as irrelevant; "[wjhere, as here, the undisputed evidence is that Ms. Smith never read the Owner’s Manual, she cannot establish that the failure to warn caused the injury”); Motus v. Pfizer Inc., 358 F.3d 659, 661 (9th Cir.2004) (California law; "Motus acknowledges that Pfizer is obligated to warn doctors, not patients, of potential side-effects associated with its pharmaceutical produc…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Greaves v. Eli Lilly & Co.
Pursuant to Georgia’s learned intermediary doctrine, this assertion severs any potential chain of causation.”); Motus v. Pfizer Inc. (Roerig Div), 358 F.3d 659, 661 (9th Cir. 2004) (holding that “a product defect claim based on insufficient warnings cannot survive summary judgment if stronger warnings would not have altered the conduct of the prescribing physician”) (citing Plummer v. Lederle Labs., 819 F.2d 349, 358-59 (2d Cir. 1987)); Ebel v. Eli Lilly & Co., 536 F.Supp.2d 767 (S.D.Tex.2008) (granting summary judgment for defendant upon finding that prescribing physician was aware of…
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Altman v. HO SPORTS CO., INC.
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
Since Altman did not read either warning, it would appear that any defect or inadequacy in the warnings could not have been a substantial factor in Altman’s *1189 injury. 13 See Motus, 358 F.3d at 661; Alfana, 2010 WL 2292265 at *2-*3, 2010 U.S. Dist.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Carpentier v. Eli Lilly & Co.
Pursuant to Georgia’s learned intermediary doctrine, this assertion severs any potential chain of causation[.]”); Motus v. Pfizer Inc., 358 F.3d 659, 661 (9th Cir.2004) (holding that a product defect claim based on insufficient warnings cannot survive summary judgment if stronger warnings would not have altered the conduct of the prescribing physician) (citing Plummer, 819 F.2d at 358-59); Ebel v. Eli Lilly & Co., 536 F.Supp.2d 767 (S.D.Tex.2008) (granting summary judgment for defendant upon finding that prescribing physician was aware of Zyprexa’s suicide-related risks that an adequate …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re Zyprexa Products Liability Litigation
Pursuant to Georgia's learned intermediary doctrine, this assertion severs any potential chain of causation[.]"); Motus v. Pfizer Inc., 358 F.3d 659, 661 (9th Cir.2004) (holding that a product defect claim based on insufficient warnings cannot survive summary judgment if stronger warnings would not have altered the conduct of the prescribing physician) (citing Plummer, 819 F.2d at 358-59); Ebel v. Eli Lilly & Co., 536 F.Supp.2d 767 (S.D.Tex.2008) (granting summary judgment for defendant upon finding that prescribing physician was aware of Zyprexa's suicide-related risks that an adequate warnin…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re Mentor Corp. ObTape Transobturator Sling Products Liability Litigation
For example, in Motus v. Pfizer Inc. (Roerig Div.), 358 F.3d 659 (9th Cir.2004), the court affirmed summary judgment in favor of a drug manufacturer because the plaintiffs doctor “testified that he did not read the warning label that accompanied Zoloft or rely on information provided by Pfizer’s detail men before prescribing the drug [, so] the adequacy of Pfizer’s warnings is irrelevant to the disposition of this case.” Id. at 661 (emphasis added).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Colacicco v. Apotex, Inc.
Motus v. Pfizer, Inc., 358 F.3d 659, 660 (9th Cir.2004) (because plaintiff failed to establish a sufficient causal link between her husband’s suicide and the drug manufacturer’s conduct, "we need not reach the preemption issues raised by [defendant]”). 13 .
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Massok v. Keller Industries, Inc.
See Ramirez v. Plough, Inc., 6 Cal.4th 539 , 25 Cal.Rptr.2d 97 , 863 P.2d 167, 177 (1993); Motus v. Pfizer Inc., 358 F.3d 659, 661 (9th Cir.2004).
discussed
Cited "see"
Parker v. Merck & Co., Inc.
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See Motus v. Pfizer Inc. (Roerig Div.), 358 F.3d 659 , 661 6 (9th Cir. 2004) (affirming summary judgment where plaintiff “failed to establish proof that 7 stronger warnings would have changed her husband’s medical treatment or averted his 8 suicide”). 9 IV.
discussed
Cited "see"
Courkamp v. Fisher-Price Incorporated
See D'Agnese, 952 F. Supp. 27 2d at 891 (quoting Motus v. Pfizer Inc. (Roerig Div.), 358 F.3d 659, 661 (9th Cir. 2004)) 28 (“a product defect claim based on insufficient warnings cannot survive summary judgment - 25 - Case 2:19-cv-02689-GMS Document 260 Filed 09/23/22 Page 26 of 35 1 if stronger warnings would not have altered the conduct . . . .”). 2 The Court begins with the presumption that Plaintiffs would have heeded an 3 adequate warning.
discussed
Cited "see"
Michelle Himes v. Somatics, LLC
(2×)
See Motus v. Pfizer Inc., 358 F.3d 659, 660 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing Bank of California v. Opie, 663 F.2d 977, 979 (9th Cir. 1981)). 3 physician.
cited
Cited "see"
Michelle Himes v. Somatics, LLC
See Motus v. Pfizer Inc., 358 F.3d 659, 660 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing Bank of California v. Opie, 663 F.2d 977, 979 (9th Cir. 1981)). 4 HIMES V.
discussed
Cited "see"
Specter v. Rainbow King Lodge, Inc.
See Motus v. Pfizer, Inc., 358 F.3d 659 , 660–61 (9th Cir. 2004) (stating that a prescription drug manufacturer’s duty to warn runs to the physician) (emphasis added).
discussed
Cited "see"
Wessels v. Biomet Orthopedics LLC
See Motus v. Pfizer Inc. (Roerig Div.), 358 F.3d 659, 661 (9th Cir. 2004) (applying California law) (“Because the doctor testified that he did not read the warning label that accompanied [the prescription medication] or rely on information provided by [representatives of the defendant manufacturer] before prescribing the drug to [plaintiff], . . . . [plaintiff] failed to establish that stronger warnings would have changed her husband’s medical treatment or averted [his injury].”); In re Wright Med.
discussed
Cited "see"
(PS) Cleveland v. Janssen Pharmaceuticals
See Motus, 358 F.3d at 661 (affirming grant of summary judgment 5 for defendant where plaintiff “failed to establish proof that stronger warnings would have 6 changed her husband’s medical treatment”); see also Ramirez v. Plough, Inc., 6 Cal.4th 539 , 556 7 (1993) (“[T]here is no conceivable causal connection between the representations or omissions 8 that accompanied the product and plaintiff’s injury.”).
discussed
Cited "see"
City of Beaumont v. Piexon Ag
See Motus v. Pfizer, Inc., 358 F.3d 659, 661 (9th Cir. 4 2004); Ramirez v. Plough, Inc., 863 P.2d 167, 177 (Cal. 1993) (holding there was “no conceivable causal connection” between the inadequate warning and the plaintiff’s injury where the warning was in a language the plaintiff did not speak or read); cf. Bunch v. Hoffinger Indus., Inc., 20 Cal. Rptr. 3d 780 , 799–800 (Ct. App. 2004) (reviewing testimony from multiple witnesses suggesting a more forceful warning on a swimming pool liner would have prevented a child from diving in and suffering paralysis).
discussed
Cited "see"
Stephen Wendell v. Glaxosmithkline LLC
See Motus v. Pfizer Inc. (Roerig Div.), 358 F.3d 659, 660 (9th Cir. 2004) (explaining that in diversity-actions the court applies state substantive law and the federal rules of procedure).
discussed
Cited "see"
Sherin v. John Crane-Houdaille, Inc.
See id. ("[A] product defect claim based on insufficient warnings cannot survive summary judgment if stronger warnings would not have altered the conduct of the prescribing physician.”) (alteration in original) (quoting Motus v. Pfizer Inc., 358 F.3d 659, 661 (9th Cir.2004) ("Because the doctor testified that he did not read the warning label ... before prescribing the drug to Dr. Motus, the adequacy of Pfizer’s warnings is irrelevant to the disposition of this case.”)).
discussed
Cited "see"
Latiolais v. Merck & Co.
See Motus v. Pfizer, Inc., 358 F.3d 659, 661 (9th Cir.2004) (stating that a prescription drug manufacturer’s duty to warn runs to the physician and that a product defect claim based on insufficient warnings cannot survive summary judgment if stronger warnings would not have altered the prescribing physician’s conduct).
discussed
Cited "see"
Colacicco v. Apotex Inc
See Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae, Motus v. Pfizer Inc., 358 F.3d 659 (9th Cir. 2004) (Nos. 02-55372, 02- 55498), 2002 WL 32303084 (brief submitted September 10, 2002).15 The FDA also repeatedly approved the Paxil labeling in effect at the time of Lois Colacicco’s prescription of Paxil on October 6, 2003, and her death on October 28, 2003, approving it for a new indication, the treatment of generalized anxiety approval again conditioned on Pfizer’s incorporation of a series of labeling revisions.
discussed
Cited "see"
Colacicco v. Apotex Inc.
(2×)
See Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae, Motus v. Pfizer Inc., 358 F.3d 659 (9th Cir.2004) (Nos.02-55372, 02-55498), 2002 WL 32303084 (brief submitted September 10, 2002). [15] The FDA also repeatedly approved the Paxil labeling in effect at the' time of Lois Colacicco's prescription of Paxil on October 6, 2003, and her death on October 28, 2003, approving it for a new indication, the treatment of generalized anxiety disorder, just a year before those events. [16] The FDA approved Apotex's application to market generic paroxetine on June 30, 2003, concluding that "the drug is safe and…
discussed
Cited "see"
Witczak v. Pfizer, Inc.
(2×)
See Motus, 358 F.3d at 661 (affirming district court’s holding that plaintiff could not establish causality without reaching the preemption issue).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp.
See United States v. Fifty-Nine Tubes, More or Less, of Lutein Tablets, 32 F.Supp. 958, 960 (S.D.N.Y.1940) (describing how "detail men or salesmen” interacted with physicians); see also Motus v. Pfizer, Inc., 358 F.3d 659, 661 (9th Cir.2004) (referring to "Pfizer’s detail men” providing drug information to a physician); N. Cal. Pharm.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Bartlett v. MUTUAL PHARMACEUTICAL CO., INC.
See, e.g., Motus v. Pfizer Inc., 358 F.3d 659, 661 (9th Cir.2004) (affirming summary judgment based on lack of causation where plaintiff’s “doctor testified that he did not read the warning label”); Porterfield v. Ethicon, Inc., 183 F.3d 464, 468 (5th Cir.1999) (same); 5 Frumer & Friedman, supra, § 50.05[4], at 50-88 (noting that “most courts will find an absence of causation as a matter of law” where “the physician testifies that he or she never read the warnings given”).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Bartlett v. Mutual Pharmaceutical
See, e.g., Motus v. Pfizer Inc., 358 F.3d 659, 661 (9th Cir. 2004) (affirming summary judgment based on lack of causation where plaintiff's "doctor testified that he did not read the warning label"); Porterfield v. Ethicon, Inc., 183 F.3d 464, 468 (5th Cir. 1999) (same); 5 Frumer & Friedman, supra, § 50.05 [4], at 50-88 (noting that "most courts will find an absence of causation as a matter of law" where "the physician testifies that he or she never read the warnings given").
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re Zyprexa Products Liability Litigation
See, e.g., Motus v. Pfizer Inc., 358 F.3d 659, 661 (9th Cir. 2004) (holding that a product defect claim based on insufficient warnings cannot survive summary judgment if stronger warnings would not have altered the conduct of the prescribing physician) (citing Plummer v. Lederle Laboratories, Div. of American Cyanamid Co., 819 F.2d 349, 358-59 (2d Cir.1987)); Ebel v. Eli Lilly & Co., 536 F.Supp.2d 767, 780 (S.D.Tex.2008) (granting summary judgment for defendant upon finding that prescribing physician was aware of Zyprexa's suicide-related risks that an adequate warning would have provided and …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Hood ex rel. Mississippi v. Eli Lilly & Co.
See, e.g., Motus v. Pfizer Inc., 358 F.3d 659, 661 (9th Cir.2004) (holding that a product defect claim based on insufficient warnings cannot survive summary judgment if stronger warnings would not have altered the conduct of the prescribing physician) (citing Plummer v. Lederle Laboratories, Div. of American Cyanamid Co., 819 F.2d 349, 358-59 (2d Cir.1987)); Ebel v. Eli Lilly & Co., 536 F.Supp.2d 767, 780 (S.D.Tex.2008) (granting summary judgment for defendant upon finding that prescribing physician was aware of Zyprexa’s suicide-related risks that an adequate warning would have provided and…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re Zyprexa Products Liability Litig.
See, e.g., Motus v. Pfizer Inc., 358 F.3d 659, 661 (9th Cir.2004) (holding that a product defect claim based on insufficient warnings cannot survive summary judgment if stronger warnings would not have altered the conduct of the prescribing physician) (citing Plummer v. Lederle Laboratories, Div. of American Cyanamid Co., 819 F.2d 349, 358-59 (2d Cir.1987)); Ebel v. Eli Lilly & Co., 536 F.Supp.2d 767 (S.D.Tex. 2008) (granting summary judgment for defendant upon finding that prescribing physician was aware of Zyprexa's suicide-related risks that an adequate warning would have provided and that …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Earl v. Eli Lilly & Co.
See, e.g., Motus v. Pfizer Inc., 358 F.3d 659, 661 (9th Cir.2004) (holding that a product defect claim based on insufficient warnings cannot survive summary judgment if stronger warnings would not have altered the conduct of the prescribing physician) (citing Plummer v. Lederle Laboratories, Div. of American Cyanamid Co., 819 F.2d 349, 358-59 (2d Cir.1987)); Ebel v. Eli Lilly & Co., 536 F.Supp.2d 767 (S.D.Tex.2008) (granting summary judgment for defendant upon finding that prescribing physician was aware of Zyprexa’s suicide-related risks that an adequate warning would have provided and that…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Head v. Eli Lilly & Co.
See, e.g., Motus v. Pfizer Inc., 358 F.3d 659, 661 (9th Cir.2004) (holding that a product defect claim based on insufficient warnings cannot survive summary judgment if stronger warnings would not have altered the conduct of the prescribing physician) (citing Plummer v. Lederle Labs., Div. of Am.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re Zyprexa Products Liability Litigation
See, e.g., Motus v. Pfizer Inc., 358 F.3d 659, 661 (9th Cir.2004) (holding that a product defect claim based on insufficient warnings cannot survive summary judgment if stronger warnings would not have altered the conduct of the prescribing physician) (citing Plummer v. Lederle Labs., Div. of Am.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Conte v. Wyeth, Inc.
Ctr. of Ocean Co. (1996) 295 N.J.Super. 113 [ 684 A.2d 944, 945, fn. 1 ].) 5 Because metoclopramide is a prescription drug, under the learned-intermediary doctrine Wyeth’s duty to warn of risks associated with its usage runs to the physician, not the patient. *99 Carlin v. Superior Court (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1104, 1116 [ 56 Cal.Rptr.2d 162 , 920 P.2d 1347 ]; Brown v. Superior Court (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1049, 1061-1062 [ 245 Cal.Rptr. 412 , 751 P.2d 470 ]; see also Motus v. Pfizer Inc. (Roerig Div.) (9th Cir. 2004) 358 F.3d 659 [applying California law].) “In the case of medical prescriptions, ‘…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Flora Motus, Individually, as Successor in Interest of the Estate of Victor Motus (Deceased) and as Guardian Ad Litem for Lauren Motus, a Minor, Plaintiff-Appellant/cross-Appellee
v.
Pfizer Inc., (Roerig Division), a Corporation, Defendant-Appellee/cross-Appellant
v.
Pfizer Inc., (Roerig Division), a Corporation, Defendant-Appellee/cross-Appellant
02-55372.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Feb 9, 2004.
Cited by 12 opinions | Published
Flora MOTUS, individually, as Successor in Interest of the Estate of Victor Motus (deceased) and as Guardian Ad Litem for Lauren Motus, a minor, Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee,
v.
PFIZER INC., (ROERIG DIVISION), a Corporation, Defendant-Appellee/Cross-Appellant.
No. 02-55372.
No. 02-55498.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted October 10, 2003 — Pasadena, California.
Filed February 9, 2004.
Jessica R. Dart, Baum, Hedlund, Aristei, Guilford & Schiavo, Los Angeles, California, for the plaintiff-appellant/cross-appellee.
Pierce O'Donnell, O'Donnell & Shaeffer, Los Angeles, California; Malcolm E. Wheeler, Wheeler, Trigg & Kennedy, Denver, Colorado, for the defendant-appellee/cross-appellant.
Alan Morrison, Public Citizen Litigation Group, Washington, D.C., for the amicus.
Robert D. Kamenshine, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for amicus United States Food & Drug Administration.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California; A. Howard Matz, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-00-00298-AHM.
Before: J. WALLACE, Clifford Wallace, Pamela Ann RYMER, and Richard C. Tallman, TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by Judge Tallman.
OPINION
TALLMAN, Circuit Judge:
[*~659]1
Plaintiff Flora Motus claims that her husband suffered from an adverse reaction to the drug Zoloft, which she contends induced him to commit suicide. She argues that Pfizer Inc., as Zoloft's manufacturer, is liable because the company failed to provide adequate warnings to doctors of alleged side-effects associated with the antidepressant. The district court granted Pfizer's motion for summary judgment, holding that Motus failed to establish a sufficient causal link between her husband's suicide and Pfizer's conduct. See Motus v. Pfizer, Inc., 196 F.Supp.2d 984 (C.D.Cal.2001). Because the district court there described the facts of this case in detail we repeat only the essential ones here. Upon de novo review, see Salve Regina Coll. v. Russell, 499 U.S. 225, 231-35, 111 S.Ct. 1217, 113 L.Ed.2d 190 (1991), we affirm. In light of our disposition, we need not reach the pre-emption issues raised by Pfizer on cross-appeal.
2
Because this is a diversity action, we apply California substantive law and federal rules of procedure. See Bank of California v. Opie, 663 F.2d 977, 979 (9th Cir.1981) ("[In] a diversity case, federal law alone governs whether evidence is sufficient to raise a question for the trier-of-fact.") (citation omitted).
[*~660]3
We offer no opinion on the existence of purported side-effects associated with Zoloft or on the adequacy of Pfizer's warnings. Instead, we agree with the district court that even if Pfizer's warnings concerning Zoloft and suicide were deficient, on the facts of this case, Motus failed to establish that Pfizer's allegedly inadequate warnings contributed to her husband's suicide.
[*~661]4
Motus acknowledges that Pfizer is obligated to warn doctors, not patients, of potential side-effects associated with its pharmaceutical products, see Carlin v. Superior Court, 13 Cal.4th 1104, 1116, 56 Cal.Rptr.2d 162, 920 P.2d 1347 (1996), and concedes that the doctor who prescribed Zoloft to her husband failed to read Pfizer's published warnings before prescribing the drug. Because the doctor testified that he did not read the warning label that accompanied Zoloft or rely on information provided by Pfizer's detail men before prescribing the drug to Mr. Motus, the adequacy of Pfizer's warnings is irrelevant to the disposition of this case.
[*~660]5
We agree with the Second Circuit that a product defect claim based on insufficient warnings cannot survive summary judgment if stronger warnings would not have altered the conduct of the prescribing physician. See Plummer v. Lederle Labs., Div. of Am. Cyanamid Co., 819 F.2d 349, 358-59 (2d Cir.1987) (citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986)). On the record adduced during discovery, Motus failed to establish proof that stronger warnings would have changed her husband's medical treatment or averted his suicide. See id.
6
Under similar circumstances, the California Supreme Court held that "there is no conceivable causal connection between the representations or omissions that accompanied the product and plaintiff's injury." Ramirez v. Plough, Inc., 6 Cal.4th 539, 556, 25 Cal.Rptr.2d 97, 863 P.2d 167 (1993). Therefore, whether judged by federal or California standards, see Fairbank v. Wunderman Cato Johnson, 212 F.3d 528, 531-33 (9th Cir.2000) (distinguishing between federal procedural standards which we apply and California summary judgment standards), summary judgment was properly entered in this case.
7
AFFIRMED.