MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
DANNY C. REEVES, District Judge.
This civil action involves claims that a medical device which was developed, marketed and distributed by the defendants injured Plaintiff Naoma Slone. Slone and her husband, Tommy Slone, filed a Complaint in the Jackson Circuit Court on September 19, 2013. [Record No. 1-1] Thereafter, the matter was removed to this Court based on diversity jurisdiction.
Following removal, Defendant CL Medical, Inc. moved the Court to dismiss Count 5 of the plaintiffs' Complaint pursuant to Rules 9(b) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. [Record No. 5] Defendant CL Medical, Inc.'s motion was filed on November 12, 2013. However, the plaintiffs have not responded within the time provided by the Local Rules. See Local Rule 7.1. As a result, the Court will evaluate the merits of the defendant's motion without the benefit of a response.
The plaintiffs' Complaint contains a lengthy recitation of alleged facts relating to the manufacture and distribution of the medical device "I-STOP" which is used to treat female uninary incontinence. [ See Record No. 1-1, pp. 4-24.] Following their factual assertions, the plaintiffs make the following claims for relief: (i) Count One - Products Liability, Defective Design; (ii) Count Two - Products Liability, Failure to Warn; (iii) Count Three - Products Liability, Breach of Implied Warranty; (iv) Count Four - Products Liability, Breach of Express Warranty; (v) Count Five - Negligence; and (vi) Count Six - Loss of Consortium.
Defendant CL Medical, Inc.'s motion relates only to Count Five, which contains the following allegations:
COUNT FIVE NEGLIGENCE
125. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
126. Defendants had a duty to accurately and truthfully represent to the medical and healthcare community, Plaintiff, and the public, that I-STOP had not been adequately tested and found to be safe and effective for the treatment of incontinence and prolapse. The representations made by the Defendants, in fact, were false.
127. Defendants failed to exercise ordinary care in the representations concerning I-STOP while they were involved in their manufacture, sale, testing, quality assurance, quality control, and distribution in interstate commerce, because Defendants negligently misrepresented I-STOP's high risk of unreasonable, dangerous and adverse side effects.
128. Defendants breached their duty in representing that I-STOP had no serious side effects different from older generations of similar products and/or procedures to Plaintiff, Plaintiff's physicians, and the medical healthcare community.
129. As a foreseeable, direct and proximate result of the negligent misrepresentation of Defendants as set forth herein, Defendants know, and had reason to know, that I-STOP had been insufficiently tested, or had not been tested at all, and that they lacked adequate and accurate warnings, and that they created a high risk and/or higher than acceptable risk, and/or higher that reported and represented risk, of adverse side effects, including erosion, pain and suffering, surgery to remove the products, and other severe and personal injuries, which are permanent and lasting in nature.
130. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' conduct, Plaintiff has Suffered [sic] the herein described injuries and damages.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants, jointly and severally, in an amount exceeding the minimum jurisdictional requirements of this court sufficient to compensate Plaintiff for her damages; for costs expended herein; ...