United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
LAMONT SINGLETON and JOCELYN WILSON, Administrators of the Estate of ALIVIA SINGLETON, deceased, Plaintiffs,
PHARMATECH, LLC; THE HARVARD DRUG GROUP, LLC d/b/a RUGBY LABORATORIES; and BAYSHORE PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC, Defendants.
FLORIDA ULTRAPURE WATER, LLC d/b/a ALL FLORIDA WATER, INC.; and BRUCHEM, INC., Third Party Defendants.
Barry Fischer Senior United States District Judge
case arises out the injuries and death of Alivia Singleton
(A.S.), whose death was purportedly caused by her receiving
liquid docusate sodium stool softener that was contaminated
with Burkholderia cepacia (hereinafter “B.
cepacia”). (Docket No. 35 ¶¶ 1, 5). In their
Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs Lamont Singleton and
Jocelyn Wilson, Administrators of the Estate of Alivia
Singleton, allege that Defendants PharmaTech, LLC
(“PharmaTech”), Bayshore Pharmaceuticals, and The
Harvard Drug Group, LLC d/b/a Rugby Laboratories
(“Harvard Drug”) are liable for A.S.'s
injuries and death on the basis of the following product
liability theories: negligence, strict liability, and breach
of warranty. (Docket No. 35). In accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P.
14(a), Harvard Drug then filed their Third Party Amended
Complaint against Bruchem, Inc. (“Bruchem”) for
negligence/ contribution, common law indemnity, and strict
liability. (Docket No. 199). Presently before the Court is
Bruchem's Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss (Docket
No. 217), its brief in support thereof (Docket No. 218), and
Harvard Drug's Response in Opposition (Docket No. 235).
After careful consideration of the parties' arguments,
and for the reasons essentially stated in Harvard Drug's
Response in Opposition (Docket No. 235), 
Bruchem's Motion  is denied without prejudice to
renewal on summary judgment; and
Bruchem shall file an answer on or before August
Court writes primarily for the parties, it dispenses with a
lengthy recitation of the facts and only briefly references
the well-established standard governing motions to dismiss
under Rule 12(b)(6), which is set forth more fully in other
decisions by this Court. See e.g., Battle Born Munitions,
Inc. v. Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc., Civ. Act. No.
18-1418, 2019 WL 1978429, at *4 (W.D. Pa. May 3, 2019). To
this end, when reviewing a motion to dismiss under Rule
12(b)(6), the Court must “accept all factual
allegations [in the complaint] as true, [and] construe the
complaint in the light most favorable to the
plaintiff.” See Phillips v. Cty. of Allegheny,
515 F.3d 224, 231 (3d Cir. 2008); however, a complaint must
be dismissed if it does not allege “enough facts to
state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face,
” see Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,
Court's estimation, Harvard Drug has stated a plausible
claim for relief against Bruchem for negligence/
contribution, common law indemnity, and strict liability. The
Court reaches these conclusions for several reasons.
Drug's First Amended Complaint pleads the following
• PharmaTech contracted with Bruchem to supply the API
and/or other ingredients used in the manufacture of
PharmaTech's Diocto Liquid (Docket No. 199 ¶ 14).
• Bruchem was a significant and/or exclusive supplier of
API and/or other ingredients to PharmaTech for
PharmaTech's Diocto Liquid (id. ¶ 15).
• API and/or other ingredients supplied by Bruchem to
PharmaTech were contaminated with B. cepacia (id.
• The only pharmaceutical products manufactured by
PharmaTech found to be contaminated with B. cepacia were
manufactured using Bruchem's defective API and/or other
ingredients (id. ¶ 23).
• The FDA has not tested the particular bottle(s) of
Diocto Liquid allegedly administered to the deceased or
issued a final report conclusively identifying the source of
B. cepacia for any of the bottles FDA tested (id.
• Bruchem's defective API and/or other ingredients
were sold to another manufacturer in 2017 and that
manufacturer subsequently experienced a B. cepacia outbreak
in its facility and products (id. ¶¶
• The API and/or other ingredients supplied by Bruchem
to PharmaTech for manufacture of Diocto Liquid reached the
decedent without substantial change in their condition in