Rayford et al v. Karl Storz Endoscopy-America et al

Filing 40

JUDGMENT ADOPTING 38 Report and Recommendation. IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the motion to dismiss 8 , filed by Defendants Karl Storz Endoscopy of America, Inc. and Karl Storz Endovision is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The motion is GRANTED to the extent these Defendants are sued as Manufacturers and seek dismissal of Plaintiffs LPLA claims for a manufacturing defect, as well as Plaintiffs non-LPLA claims for strict liability, breach of express and implied warranty, fraudulent misrepresentation, and punitive damages, and DENIED as to Plaintiffs claims under the LPLA for defects in design, inadequate warning, and express warranty, as well as their non-LPLA claims under redhibition and Plaintiff Darryl Rayford s claim for loss of consortium. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the motion to dismiss is GRANTED in favor of both Defendants, to the extent that they are sued as non-manufacturer sellers, and seek dismissal of Plaintiffs' cl aims under the LPLA, their non-LPLA claims for strict products liability, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, and punitive damages, and DENIED as to Plaintiffs' claims under redhibition. Signed by Judge Robert G James on 8/17/16. (crt,DickersonSld, D)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
MONROE DIVISION
AUDREY RAYFORD, ET AL.

*

CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-2835

VERSUS

*

JUDGE ROBERT G. JAM ES

KARL STORZ ENDOSCOPY
AMERICA, INC., ET AL.

*

MAG. JUDGE KAREN L. HAYES

JUDGMENT
The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge having been considered [Doc. No.
38], no objections thereto having been filed, and finding that same is supported by the law and the
record in this matter,
IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the motion to dismiss [Doc. No.
8], filed by Defendants Karl Storz Endoscopy of America, Inc. and Karl Storz Endovision is
GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The motion is GRANTED to the extent these
Defendants are sued as Manufacturers and seek dismissal of Plaintiffs’ LPLA claims for a
manufacturing defect, as well as Plaintiffs’ non-LPLA claims for strict liability, breach of express
and implied warranty, fraudulent misrepresentation, and punitive damages, and DENIED as to
Plaintiffs’ claims under the LPLA for defects in design, inadequate warning, and express warranty,
as well as their non-LPLA claims under redhibition and Plaintiff Darryl Rayford’s claim for loss of
consortium.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the motion to dismiss
is GRANTED in favor of both Defendants, to the extent that they are sued as non-manufacturer
sellers, and seek dismissal of Plaintiffs’ claims under the LPLA, their non-LPLA claims for strict

products liability, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, and punitive damages,
and DENIED as to Plaintiffs’ claims under redhibition.
MONROE, LOUISIANA, this 17th day of August, 2016.

2