principal place of business in Boston, Massachusetts. Thus, in the absence of The Brigham, there would be complete diversity and this Cou (Ala.1984) (finding that a hospital can be liable as a seller of goods for breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose for using a defective suturing needle during surgery). This case law indicates that there may be a reasonable basis in law for the Plaintiffs’ breach of warranty claims against The Brigham. The Plaintiffs argue that a hospital may have some duty to warn patients of defects in a medical device or drug by pointing to Massachusetts cases in which the courts held that a pharmacy has a duty to warn customers about side effects in certain circumstances. Cottam v. CVS Pharmacy, 436 Mass. 316, 764 N.E.2d 814, 823 (2002) (<HOLDING>); Brienze v. Casserly, No. 01-1655-C, 2003 WL
holding that a corporation has a duty under rule 80b6 to provide someone who is knowledgeable in order to provide binding answers on behalf of the corporation holding that employer has nondelegable duty to provide safe workplace holding that there was not complete preemption because the applicable federal statute did not provide a private right of action to redress the same kind of injury alleged in the plaintiffs statelaw claims holding that a pharmacy has a duty to provide a complete list of side effects when they provide a list that a customer would reasonably interpret as complete holding that the defendant pharmacist had undertaken a duty to accurately warn of a drugs side effects with respect to the warning actually given but not a duty to warn of all possible side effects of the medication