Legal Opinion
Henderson v. Pfizer, Inc.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided July 7, 2008No. 06-56568PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM **
I
Pro Se Plaintiff Sascha Henderson claims that an interuterine device (“IUD”) made by a subsidiary of Defendant Pfizer, Inc. became imbedded in the lining of her uterus, causing her pain and making her infertile. In March 2002, more than 16 years after it was implanted, she had surgery to remove the IUD, and nearly three years later, filed this products liability action on January 14, 2005. After the case was transferred from the Southern District of New York, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted summary judgment to Pfizer, concluding that the…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Norgart v. Upjohn Co.California Supreme Court · 1999
- Jolly v. Eli Lilly & Co.California Supreme Court · 1988
- Fox v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc.California Supreme Court · 2005
- Sergio E. Fonseca v. Sysco Food Services of Arizona, Inc., a Delaware For-Profit CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2004
- Platt Electrical Supply, Inc. v. Eoff Electrical, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2008
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Klat v. WahlDistrict Court, S.D. California · 2025
- Vigil v. Coloplast Corp.District Court, S.D. California · 2020