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)
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?