Logourl black
From our private database of 13,800+ case briefs...

Motus v. Pfizer Inc.

United States District Court for the Central District of California
196 F. Supp. 2d 984 (2001)


Facts

On November 6, 1998, Victor Motus’s physician, Gerald Trostler, prescribed him the antidepressant Zoloft after Motus disclosed personal problems resulting in unhappiness and difficulty sleeping. Trostler filled Motus’s prescription by giving him a sample packet of Zoloft that Trostler had received from a representative of Pfizer Inc. (defendant), the drug’s manufacturer. The packet did not contain any warnings. The box of samples given to Trostler may have included an insert with warnings but Trostler could not recall for certain and, in any event, never read any warnings provided by Pfizer. If he had, Trostler would have read that some patients had attempted suicide during trials of Zoloft, that Zoloft was not necessarily the cause thereof, but that close supervision of high-risk patients was recommended. Trostler prescribed Zoloft to Motus based on his personal experience and information from journal articles. Trostler had met with Pfizer representatives in the past but could not recall specific information imparted by them regarding Zoloft. He was aware that antidepressants in the same category as Zoloft had been associated with a higher risk of suicide, but he discounted those studies based on his experience. On November 12, 1998, Motus committed suicide. During the six days that Motus was taking Zoloft, Trostler was not informed that Motus was experiencing any adverse reactions to the drug. Motus’s widow, Flora Motus (plaintiff), sued Pfizer, alleging that it was liable for failing to adequately warn that the use of Zoloft could cause suicide. At Trostler’s deposition, Mrs. Motus never asked whether Trostler would have altered his treatment of Motus had Pfizer provided him with a specific warning about the risk of suicide. Pfizer moved for summary judgment.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision. To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question. To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

Holding and Reasoning (Matz, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 171,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 13,800 briefs, keyed to 187 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.