Lenox MacLaren Surgical Corporation v. Medtronic, Inc. et al

Filing 33

ORDER Denying 31 Motion to Certify 26 Order Denying Motion to Dismiss Rule 12(b)(2). Defendants' motion for certification 31 is denied as to the denial of the Rule 12(b)(2) motion to dismiss by Medtronic Sofamor Danek Co., Ltd., signed by Judge Richard P. Matsch on 3/24/2011. (rpmcd)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Senior District Judge Richard P. Matsch Civil Action No. 10-cv-02139-RPM LENOX MACLAREN SURGICAL CORPORATION Plaintiff, v. MEDTRONIC, INCORPORATION, a Minnesota corporation; MEDTRONIC SOFAMOR DANEK, INCORPORATED, an Indiana corporation; MEDTRONIC PS MEDICAL, INCORPORATED, d/b/a MEDTRONIC NEUROLOGIC TECHNOLOGIES, a California corporation; and MEDTRONIC SOFAMOR DANEK CO., LTD., a Japanese corporation, Defendants. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO CERTIFY ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS ­ RULE 12(b)(2) Without waiting for a response, the Defendants' motion to certify this court's orders dated February 11, 2011 is denied to the extent the motion challenges the denial of the Rule 12(b)(2) motion filed by Medtronic Sofamor Danek Co., Ltd., a Japanese corporation. The allegations of the complaint supporting antitrust claims against all of the defendants are sufficient to allege that Medtronic Sofamor Danek Co., Ltd. had a coordinated interaction with the other defendants to make unwarranted complaints of product defects used as a basis for the product recall that forms an integral part of the plaintiff's claims of anticompetitive conduct. That is an adequate showing of a prima facie basis for personal jurisdiction against the foreign corporation in this action. -1- Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the defendants' motion for certification [31] is denied as to the denial of the Rule 12(b)(2) motion to dismiss by Medtronic Sofamor Danek Co., Ltd. Dated: March 24, 2011 BY THE COURT: s/Richard P. Matsch Richard P. Matsch, Senior District Judge -2-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?