Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida, Gainesville Division
September 16, 2022, Decided; September 16, 2022, Filed
Case No. 1:21-cv-30-AW-MJF
ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN PART
Joseph Mixson and his wife sued C.R. Bard and Bard Peripheral Vascular, alleging several claims relating to an interior vena cava (IVC) filter. ECF No. 68 (TAC) ¶ 1. Defendants C.R. Bard and Bard Peripheral Vascular (collectively C.R. Bard) moved for summary judgment. ECF No. 58. This order grants the motion in part.
The summary judgment standard is settled. C.R. Bard is entitled to summary judgment if it can show that "there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and [that [*2] it] is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-25, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1986). There is a "genuine" dispute if "the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict" in the Mixsons' favor, and a "material" fact is one that could affect the outcome. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202 (1986). Once C.R. Bard points to materials in the record that show no material facts are disputed, the Mixsons must then cite "specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324 (citation omitted).1
First, C.R. Bard argues that Texas's statute of limitation applies and bars at least some of the Mixsons' claims. The Mixsons respond that Florida's statute of limitations—not Texas's—applies and that their claims are timely. Because this is a diversity case in a Florida forum, Florida's conflict-of-laws rules control. Grupo Televisa, S.A. v. Telemundo Commc'ns Grp., Inc., 485 F.3d 1233, 1240 (11th Cir. 2007). Florida has adopted the Restatement's "significant relationships test." Bishop v. Fla. Specialty Paint Co., 389 So. 2d 999, 1001 (Fla. 1980) (adopting Restatement (Second) of Conflict of L. §§ 145-146 (Am. L. Inst. 1971)). Under that test, the law of the state where the injury occurred applies "unless, with respect to the particular issue, some other state has a more significant relationship . . . to the occurrence and the parties." Restatement (Second) of Conflict of L. § 146.
The significant-relationship test examines four contacts to determine if a state has a significant [*3] relationship: (1) "the place where the injury occurred, (2) the place where the conduct causing the injury occurred, (3) the domicile, residence, nationality, place of incorporation, and place of business of the parties, and (4) the place where the relationship, if any, between the parties is centered." Grupo Televisa, 485 F.3d at 1240 (quoting § 145). "These [contacts] are considered 'according to their relative importance with respect to the particular issue.'" Michel v. NYP Holdings, Inc., 816 F.3d 686, 694 (11th Cir. 2016) (quoting Bishop, 389 So. 2d at 1001). And they inform application of seven choice-of-law principles:
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 174457 *; __ F.Supp.3d __; 2022 WL 4364153
JOSEPH CATLIN MIXSON and VIRGINIA BREANN MIXSON, Plaintiffs, v. C.R. BARD INC. and BARD PERIPHERAL VASCULAR, INC., Defendants.
punitive damages, manufacturer, filter, summary judgment, parties, statute of limitations, retroactivity, implanted, policies