Eidson v. Medtronic, Inc.
United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division
May 13, 2014, Decided; May 13, 2014, Filed
Case Nos.: 13-CV-02049; 13-CV-01502
[*1208] ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS RICHARD EIDSON'S COMPLAINT AND SCOTT AND APRIL BELL'S COMPLAINT
Plaintiffs Scott and April Bell ("the Bells") commenced this action on April 3, 2013, alleging that Scott Bell suffered harmful side effects following a spinal fusion operation in which his surgeon [**2] used a spinal fusion device produced by Medtronic, Inc. and Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc. (collectively, "Defendants"). ECF Bell No. 37, 13-CV-01502, Bell First Amended Complaint (hereinafter "Bell complaint"). Plaintiff Richard Eidson [*1209] ("Eidson") brought this action on May 6, 2013, also based on harmful effects he suffered after undergoing spinal surgery in which his surgeon used the same medical device produced by Defendants. ECF Eidson No. 38, 13-CV-02049, Eidson First Amended Complaint (hereinafter "Eidson complaint"). The two cases have been related because they involve the same product and similar questions of law. ECF Bell No. 23. On October 3, 2013, the Court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss the Bells' complaint and granted in part and denied in part Defendants' motion to dismiss Eidson's complaint. Eidson v. Medtronic, Inc., 981 F. Supp. 2d 868, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144179, 2013 WL 5533081 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 3, 2013) ("October 3, 2013 Order"). The Court held that all of the Bells' claims were barred by the statute of limitations, and that all of Eidson's non-fraud claims were either preempted or failed to show a causal nexus between Eidson's injuries and Defendants' conduct. 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144179, [WL] at *14, *16-18. The Court also held that [**3] Eidson's fraud-based claims were not preempted and were pled with sufficient particularity under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b). 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144179, [WL] at *11. Both the Bells and Eidson were granted leave to amend.
Defendants now move to dismiss both amended complaints pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. ECF Bell No. 42; ECF Eidson No. 39. This Order addresses both motions to dismiss.Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
40 F. Supp. 3d 1202 *; 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65820 **; CCH Prod. Liab. Rep. P19,395
RICHARD EIDSON, Plaintiff, v. MEDTRONIC, INC.; MEDTRONIC SOFAMOR DANEK USA,INC., Defendants.SCOTT BELL AND APRIL BELL, Plaintiffs, v. MEDTRONIC, INC.; MEDTRONIC SOFAMOR DANEK USA,INC., Defendants.
Prior History: Eidson v. Medtronic, Inc., 981 F. Supp. 2d 868, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144179 (N.D. Cal., Oct. 3, 2013)
off-label, Defendants', Plaintiffs', promotion, surgery, warnings, motion to dismiss, preempted, failure to warn, cause of action, impliedly, manufacturer, allegations, state law, misrepresentations, fraudulent misrepresentation, injuries, surgeon, fraud claim, fraud in the inducement, federal requirement, notice, expressly preempt, failure to report, federal law, misleading, preemption, articles, fraud-based, statute of limitations