Michael Deuschel v. Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al.

When the Ninth Circuit ratified the District Court’s denial of leave to amend on granting the Defendants’ first 12b6 motion, it departed from fair judicial proceedings, created inconsistencies with other Circuits and this Supreme Court on federal doctrine, as well as California substantive law on delayed discovery and drug warning rulings, and created conflicts with the public policies of other federal agencies. Petitioner was denied due process by the courts’ inconsistent practice of essentially dumping fee waived cases. » The District Court granted Bayer’s first Rule 12B6 motion to dismiss the \ instant product defect claim on statute of limitations grounds because it concluded that Appellant’s 2013 case against Kaiser for medical negligence meant the product defect claim against Bayer had also accrued no later than 2013. (l-ER-8-9) This ruling is plain error because it improperly treats knowledge of any wrongdoing as knowledge of all wrongdoing, for the purpose of accruing disparate causes of action under the applicable statute of limitations. This is contrary to settled law in California. I. Question Presented: Whether the Ninth Circuit departed from the Erie Doctrine, and violated Appellant’s due process rights, when it ratified the district court’s 12(b)(6) dismissal without leave to amend, disregarding California’s required delayed discovery rule * analysis in its ruling?