Remphrey v. Mentor Corporation et al

Filing 39

ORDER granting 38 Motion for Suggestion of Remand. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE CLAY D LAND on 09/25/2015. (CGC)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA COLUMBUS DIVISION IN RE MENTOR OBTAPE * TRANSOBTURATOR SLING PRODUCTS * LIABILITY LITIGATION * MDL Docket No. 2004 4:08-MD-2004 (CDL) CASE NO. 4:13-CV-233 (Remphrey) O R D E R Presently pending before the Court is Defendant Mentor Worldwide LLC’s Motion for Suggestion of Remand to the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota (ECF No. 38 in 4:13-cv-233). As discussed below, the motion is granted. Plaintiff Donna Remphrey alleged in her Complaint that she sustained injuries caused by Mentor’s suburethral sling product, ObTape Transobturator Tape, which is at issue in this multidistrict litigation proceeding. Compl. ¶¶ 13-17, ECF No. 1 in caused 4:13-cv-233 transobturator Litigation (alleging sling”). transferred injuries The Judicial Remphrey’s case by Panel to “Mentor on this ObTape Multidistrict Court. See Conditional Transfer Order No. 75, ECF No. 7 in 4:13-cv-233. During discovery, however, the parties learned that Remphrey was not implanted with ObTape but with a different suburethral sling. Given that this case does not involve ObTape, it does not “involve questions of fact that are common to the actions” that are part of this multidistrict litigation proceeding. Conditional Transfer Order No. 75. Therefore, the Court grants Mentor’s request for a suggestion of remand so that the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation may enter an order transferring this case back to the transferor court, the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. IT IS SO ORDERED, this 25th day of September, 2015. S/Clay D. Land CLAY D. LAND CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA 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?