Hinton et al v. Bayer Corp. et al

Filing 72

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to File Their Amended Complaint, [Doc. No. 61], is granted.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all other previously filed motions are denied as moot, without prejudice to refiling as to the Amended Complaint. 61 Signed by District Judge Henry Edward Autrey on 8/18/17. (CLA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
LAWANDA HINTON, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.

BAYER CORPORTATION, et al.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:16CV1679 HEA

OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Their
Amended Complaint, [Doc. No. 61]. Defendants oppose the Motion. For the
reasons set forth below, the Motion will be granted.
Plaintiff filed this action in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis,
Missouri seeking damages from Defendants for personal injuries allegedly suffered
as a result of being prescribed and implanted with the allegedly defective and
unreasonably dangerous product Essure. Defendants removed the action pursuant
to the Court’s diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, and federal question
jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Defendants also filed a motion to dismiss for lack
of personal jurisdiction. Subsequently, the United States Supreme Court issued its
decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of Cal, ___ U.S. ___, 137

S.Ct.1773 (2017), which significantly impacts the issues in this case regarding the
personal jurisdiction issues as they relate to Plaintiffs’ original Petition.
Plaintiffs now seek to file an Amended Complaint to address the issues
presented in Bristol-Myers, in an effort to establish personal jurisdiction over
Defendants and contest the Court’s diversity jurisdiction. Defendants oppose the
Motion, arguing that it would be futile.
The Court has reviewed Plaintiffs’ proposed Amended Complaint. Pursuant
to Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, leave to amend should be freely
given. Although Defendants urge that allowing the Amended Complaint will be
futile, the Court believes Plaintiffs should be given the opportunity to amend their
Complaint and set forth their bases for filing suit in Missouri. Defendants will not
be prejudiced by the filing of the Amended Complaint as they are free to challenge
any aspect of jurisdiction they believe is lacking.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Their
Amended Complaint, [Doc. No. 61], is granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all other previously filed motions are

2

denied as moot, without prejudice to refiling as to the Amended Complaint.
Dated this 18th day of August, 2017.

________________________________
HENRY EDWARD AUTREY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3