Mariana Olivia Savu v. Purolite Corporation; Hopkinton Drug Company

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-1441
MARIANA OLIVIA SAVU,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
PUROLITE CORPORATION; HOPKINTON DRUG COMPANY,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Deborah Lynn Boardman, District Judge. (8:22-cv-01149-DLB)
Submitted: November 6, 2023 Decided: January 3, 2024
Before RUSHING and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mariana Olivia Savu, Appellant Pro Se. R. Scott Krause, LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD
& SMITH LLP, Baltimore, Maryland; Andrew Seth Bassan, KIERNAN TREBACH, LLP,
Washington, D.C., for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Mariana Olivia Savu appeals the district court’s order granting Defendants Purolite
Corporation’s and Hopkinton Drug Company’s motions to dismiss her amended complaint
for failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). We have reviewed the record
and find no reversible error.* Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Savu v.
Purolite Co., No. 8:22-cv-01149-DLB (D. Md. filed Feb. 21, 2023 & entered Feb. 22,
2023). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
* The district court dismissed several of Savu’s claims against Purolite on the basis
that, under the learned intermediary doctrine, Purolite did not have a duty to warn Savu of
the potential side effects of cholestyramine. Although this Court has long assumed the
learned intermediary doctrine applies under Maryland law, see Hofherr v. Dart Indus., Inc.,
853 F.2d 259, 263 (4th Cir. 1988), the Supreme Court of Maryland has since clarified that
it has not expressly adopted the doctrine for use in products liability claims against
pharmaceutical manufacturers, Gourdine v. Crews, 955 A.2d 769, 782-83 (Md. 2008).
Regardless, we continue to anticipate that the court would adopt the doctrine if the issue
were squarely presented to it. See Zeigler v. Eastman Chem. Co., 54 F.4th 187, 194 (4th
Cir. 2022) (explaining that if a “state’s highest court has not directly addressed an issue,
we anticipate what its decision would be” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
Accordingly, we discern no reversible error in the district court’s application of the doctrine
to Savu’s claims. See Doe v. Va. Polytechnic Inst. & St. Univ., 77 F.4th 231, 236 n.5 (4th
Cir. 2023) (“[W]e may affirm on any ground supported by the record.”).

-- 2 of 2 --