Copeland v. Stryker Orthopedics, Inc. et al

Filing 10

ORDER that the Court is assured of its jurisdiction to preside over this case. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 7/16/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - EDS)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9

JOYCE COPELAND,

Case No. 2:13-cv-01066-MMD-CWH
Plaintiff,

10

ORDER
11
12
13

v.
STRYKER ORTHOPEDICS, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

14
15

Plaintiff Joyce Copeland filed this action on April 8, 2013, and an Amended

16

Complaint on May 15, 2013, in the Eighth Judicial District Court in Clark County,

17

Nevada. Plaintiff alleges that the total knee arthroplasty surgery she had on July 27,

18

2009, failed because of faulty Triathlon Knee components, which she asserts were

19

designed, researched, tested, manufactured, labeled, and distributed by Defendants

20

Stryker Corporation, Stryker Orthopedics, Inc., and Stryker Howmedica Osteonics

21

Corporation. Plaintiff had a revision surgery in 2011 during which Plaintiff alleges her

22

surgeon discovered that the Triathlon Knee components inserted during her original

23

surgery had come loose in three different places related to the tibial components of the

24

device. Plaintiff brings twelve claims for relief. Defendants removed the action on the

25

basis of 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (See dkt. no. 1.)

26

On June 20, 2013, the Court ordered Defendants to show cause as to why this

27

case should not be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Dkt. no. 4.)

28

Defendants responded on June 25, 2013. (Dkt. no. 8.) In their response, Defendants

1

met their burden to demonstrate that the amount-in-controversy exceeds $75,000 and

2

that their Petition for Removal was timely filed. Accordingly, the Court is now assured of

3

its jurisdiction to preside over this case.

4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5

DATED THIS 16th day of July 2013.

6
MIRANDA M. Du
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2