Amicus Curiae Brief of Law Professor Suzette Malveaux in Support of Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant Ultragenyx’s Motion to Dismiss: Lacks v. Ultragenyx Pharamceutical, Inc.

Authors

Suzette Malveaux, Washington and Lee University School of LawFollow

Document Type

Brief

Publication Date

2023

Abstract

Plaintiff alleges that Ultragenyx was conferred the benefit of Henrietta Lacks’s cell line, that Ultragenyx knew of this benefit, and that Ultragenyx unfairly retained the benefit without providing payment to the Lacks family. Moreover, Plaintiff contends that this wrongful conduct has been going on for years, within the three-year limitations period and beforehand. Thus, on the face of the complaint, Plaintiff’s unjust enrichment claims would be viable. Alternatively, Plaintiff may proceed on a theory that an unjust enrichment claim does not ripen until an accumulation of wrongful acts has occurred, which pushes accrual within the limitations period.

Recommended Citation

Amicus Curiae Brief of Law Professor Suzette Malveaux in Support of Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant Ultragenyx’s Motion to Dismiss: Lacks v. Ultragenyx Pharamceutical, Inc., D. Md. No. 23-cv-2171 (filed Nov. 8, 2023).