U.S. District Judge Rita F. Lin granted the motion to dismiss with leave to amend, giving plaintiffs until June 8, 2026, to fix the deficiencies.

Plaintiffs Destiny, Yasmeen, and Brandon Owens sued the companies on behalf of their mother, Stacy Owens, who died in 2016. They alleged the defendants failed to warn consumers that Risperdal, an antipsychotic drug, caused breast cancer.

The court found the claims time-barred under California’s two-year statute of limitations. Stacy Owens was diagnosed with breast cancer around 2012 and died Nov. 13, 2016. The complaint showed on its face that the claims were barred.

The court rejected the plaintiffs’ arguments that the discovery rule or fraudulent concealment tolled the deadline. The complaint did not specify when or how the plaintiffs were put on inquiry notice that the drug caused the cancer.

"The Complaint does not plead when and how Plaintiffs were put on inquiry notice that Defendants’ alleged wrongdoing caused Stacy Owens’s cancer," Lin wrote.

The judge also ruled the failure-to-warn claims were preempted by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Under the "changes being effected" regulation, manufacturers can unilaterally strengthen warnings only if they have "newly acquired information" not previously submitted to the FDA.

The plaintiffs cited studies linking Risperdal to breast cancer, but many were reviewed or post-dated Stacy Owens’s death. The complaint did not allege which studies were known to the defendants but withheld.

"Even assuming that some of them were withheld, the Complaint does not allege when Stacy Owens took Risperdal, so it is impossible to analyze whether, of treatment, Defendants were in possession of information not previously submitted to the FDA," Lin wrote.

The general negligence and fraud claims were also dismissed. The fraud claim lacked particularity under Rule 9(b), and the negligence claim overlapped entirely with the failure-to-warn theory, which was preempted.

The court denied the defendants’ request for judicial notice as moot because it did not rely on the documents in granting the dismissal.