Vess v. Ciba-Geigy Corp. USA
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
317 F.3d 1097 (2003)

- Written by Mary Phelan D'Isa, JD
Facts
Vess, who was given Ritalin when he was nine years old, sued Novartis, the drug manufacturer, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) the publisher of a diagnostic manual of mental illnesses, and a nonprofit advocacy group, Children and Adults with Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (CHADD) (defendants), alleging a fraudulent conspiracy to popularize the diagnosis of ADHD and the use of Ritalin to treat it. The APA and CHADD responded with motions to dismiss for Vess’s failure to meet heightened pleading standards for fraud allegations and a special motion to strike, alleging that Vess’s suit constituted a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation suit (SLAPP), alleging injury resulting from the APA’s and CHADD’s free-speech activities. California’s anti-SLAPP statute was enacted to allow early dismissal of meritless suits attempting to chill expression through costly, time-consuming litigation. The district court determined that Vess’s suit constituted a SLAPP suit and granted the motion to strike, and it dismissed Vess’s fraud claims for failure to meet the heightened pleading requirements and failure to state a claim under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 9(b) and 12(b)(6).
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Fletcher, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.