Cases

ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT larry j. McKinney, judge This case is before the Court on Defendants’, Davol, Inc. and C.R. Bard, Inc. (collectively, “Bard”), Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt.30) on Plaintiffs’j Bobby Don Bowersock, Charlotte Robinson, and Mark Bowersock (collectively “Plaintiffs’ ”), Complaint. Dkt. 1. Plaintiffs allege that a hernia patch manufactured by Bard and impl

Sykes, Circuit Judge. *692 C.R. Bard, Inc., manufactures a surgical mesh patch used to repair hernias by implantation. The patch consists of two pieces of mesh that surround a flexible plastic ring. During a hernia repair, the patch is folded to fit through a small incision, then the plastic

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 17-2068 CHARLOTTE ROBINSON and BOBBY DON BOWERSOCK as co-personal representatives of the Estate of Georgia J. Bowersock, deceased, and MARK BOWERSOCK, individually, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. DAVOL INC. and C.R. BARD, INC.,

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT DAYOL, INC’S MOTION TO DISMISS GONZALO P. CURIEL, District Judge. Before the Court is Defendant Davol, *1153Inc.’s1 motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (Dkt. No. 6.) An opposition was filed on July 9, 2015. (Dkt. No. 10.) A reply wa

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 17-2068 CHARLOTTE ROBINSON and BOBBY DON BOWERSOCK as co-personal representatives of the Estate of Georgia J. Bowersock, deceased, and MARK BOWERSOCK, individually, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. DAVOL INC. and C.R. BARD, INC.,

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ABDUL K. KALLON, District Judge. Robert Collins (“Mr. Collins”) and Caro-leigh Collins (“Ms. Collins”) (collectively “the plaintiffs”) bring this action against Davol, Inc. and C.R. Bard, Inc. (“the defendants”) for breach of implied warranty, negligence, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, failure to warn, loss of consortium, fraud, misre

SARAH S. VANCE, Chair Before the Panel:* Plaintiffs in fifteen of the actions listed on Schedule A pending in seven districts move under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to centralize pretrial proceedings in this litigation in the Southern District of Ohio or, alternatively, the Wester

28 Kan. App.2d 726 (2001) 20 P.3d 738 BRENDA L. NAFF, Claimant/Appellant, v. DAVOL, INC., Respondent/Appellee, and LUMBERMAN'S MUTUAL CASUALTY COMPANY, Insurance Carrier/Appellee. No. 85,559. Court of Appeals of Kansas. Opinion filed March 23, 2001. Chris Miller, of Lawrence, for the appellant. Mark E. Kolich, of Mustain,

DECISION Before this Court is the motion of Plaintiffs — Barbara Brokaw, Raymond Mutz, Tammy Oakley, and Delza Young, ("Plaintiffs") — to Require Compliance with the Court's Protective and Confidentiality Order (Protective Order). Defendants C.R. Bard, Inc. and Davol Inc. (collectively "Defendants") object to said motion. At issue is whether Defendants violated the terms of the Protective Order by designating

DECISION Davol Inc. and C.R. Bard, Inc. ("Defendants") move to dismiss Pamela Shearier's complaint pursuant to Super. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Ms. Shearier ("Plaintiff") objects to the motion. I Facts and Travel On May 23, 2007, Ms. Shearier filed a complaint in this Court, alleging that she

*784 PETTINE, District Judge. This is an application for enforcement of an order of the National Labor Relations Board directing Davol, Inc., (Davol) to turn over certain information to Local 911, United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of America,

644 F.3d 1312 (2011) Wanda WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MAST BIOSURGERY USA, INC., a wholly owned subsidiary of Mast Biosurgery AG, the parent company, Defendant-Appellee. No. 10-12578. United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit. June 30, 2011. *1313 Joseph D. Weathers, Justin Barrett Allegood, Robert Daniel Jewell, Mo

(2008) Sherry HILL, Plaintiff, v. C.R. BARD, INC., a corporation, Davol, Inc., a corporation, Adolf Lo, Ph.D., and Sidney Rohrscheib, Ph.D., Defendants. Case No. 08-CV-2142. United States District Court, C.D. Illinois, Urbana Division. October 15, 2008. OPINION MICHAEL P. McCUSKEY, Chief Judge. On August 26, 2008, 2008 WL 4615609, Unit

Before the Court in these products liability actions are consolidated Motions to Dismiss (Motions) filed by the Defendants C.R. Bard, Inc. (Bard), and Davol, Inc. (Davol) *Page 2 (collectively, the Defendants), against all of the above-named Plaintiffs.1 The Motions are based upon the doctrine of forum nonconveniens. The Plaintiffs have filed objections. Jurisdiction is pursuant to G.L. 1956 §

KELLY, Circuit Judge, joined by BALDOCK and BRORBY, Circuit Judges, concurring in part and dissenting in part. I concur in the court’s opinion that a “qualified individual with a disability” under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) includes an employee who with or without reasonable accommodation can perform a reassigned job, even though the employee is unable to perfor

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DOUGLAS P. WOODLOCK, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE I. BACKGROUND.. .32 A. Factual Background... 32 B. Procedural History.. .33 1. Initial Complaint and Pre-Trial Proceedings.. .33 2. Jury Verdict... 34 3. Post-Trial Motions... 34 C. Applicable Standards of Review.. .35

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 23-1626 ___________________________ Nancy Ann Burke, individually and as Personal Representative for the estate of David K Burke; Russell David Burke; Jeffrey John Burke; Katherine Elizabeth Burke; Victoria Jane Burke, llllllllllllllllll

James O. Browning, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, filed March 23, 2018 (Doc. 27)("MTD"). The Court held a hearing on August 10, 2018. The primary issues are: (i) whether the applicable statutes of limitations bar Plaintiff Janice Nowell's claims against Defendants Medtronic Inc., Covidien PLC, Covidien LP, and Medtronic PLC for negligence, strict

DISCUSSION Defendant seeks dismissal of the Complaint with prejudice on the following grounds: (1) the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over the claims asserted by Plaintiff Iliana Sanchez; (2) Plaintiffs' consumer protection claims fail because Plaintiffs have not alleged an actionable misrepresentation; (3) Plaintiffs' common law claims fail as a matter of law; and (4) Plaintiffs lack standing to seek prospective injunctive reli

609 F.Supp.2d 951 (2009) HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR INC., Hynix Semiconductor America Inc., Hynix Semiconductor U.K. Ltd., and Hynix Semiconductor Deutschland GmbH, Plaintiffs, v. RAMBUS INC., Defendant. No. C-00-20905 RMW. United States District Court, N.D. California, San Jose Division. February 23, 2009. *954 Allen Ruby, Law Offices