Johnson v. Mentor Corporation
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 43 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Ordered by Judge Clay D. Land on 01/18/2013. (CGC)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
IN RE MENTOR CORP. OBTAPE
TRANSOBTURATOR SLING PRODUCTS
MDL Docket No. 2004
4:11-cv-5071 (N. Johnson)
O R D E R
against Defendant Mentor Worldwide LLC (“Mentor”), contending
ObTape Transobturator Tape.
Johnson filed her diversity action
in the United States District Court for the District of Rhode
transferred her case to this Court for pretrial proceedings.
In re Volkswagen & Audi Warranty Extension
consolidated and transferred under
[28 U.S.C.] § 1407, courts
The parties also agree that under Rhode
substantive law of the Commonwealth of Virginia because Johnson
lives in Virginia, all relevant medical treatment occurred in
Virginia, and Rhode Island does not have significant contacts to
See Harodite Indus., Inc. v. Warren Elec. Corp.,
considered in choice of law analysis include the place where the
injury occurred, the place where the conduct causing the injury
occurred, and the residence of the parties).
Johnson asserts the following claims: (1) strict liability;
(2) negligence; (3) breach of express warranty; (4) failure to
warn; and (5) punitive damages.
Mentor correctly contends, and
strict liability as a ground for recovery in product liability
E.g., Harris v. T.I., Inc., 413 S.E.2d 605, 609-10 (Va.
1992); Sensenbrenner v. Rust, Orling & Neale, Architects, Inc.,
374 S.E.2d 55, 57 n.4 (Va. 1988).
Johnson does not oppose
Mentor’s summary judgment motion on her strict liability claim.
Therefore, Mentor is entitled to summary judgment on Count I of
Johnson’s Complaint—the strict liability claim.
In its partial summary judgment motion, Mentor notes that
Johnson’s failure to warn claim incorporates strict liability
language, and Mentor seeks summary judgment on the failure to
warn claim to the extent Johnson is pursuing it under a strict
In her response to Mentor’s motion, Johnson
clarified that she is pursuing her failure to warn claim under a
negligence theory, not a strict liability theory, and Mentor
judgment motion as to Johnson’s failure to warn claim is denied.
Judgment against Johnson (ECF No. 43 in 4:11-cv-5071) is granted
claim) and denied as to Count IV of Johnson’s Complaint (the
failure to warn claim).
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 18th day of January, 2013.
S/Clay D. Land
CLAY D. LAND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?