Warstler v. Medtronic, Inc. et al

Filing 12

Order: Warstler's motion to convert (Doc. 8 ) is denied. Warstler has until August 31, 2016, to file a response to Medtronic's motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). (Doc. 6 ). Medtronic shall have until September 15, 2016, to file its reply. Judge James G. Carr on 8/15/16.(C,D)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION Randy Warstler, Case No. 3:16CV385 Plaintiff, v. ORDER Medtronic, Inc., et al., Defendants Randy Warstler filed this civil action against Medtronic, Inc. and two John Does, alleging that he was implanted with a defective SynchroMed® II Intrathecal Infusion Pump System. (Doc. 1). Warstler asserted that the John Does are: corporations or other business entities, the names and addresses of which are unknown, who were involved in the business of developing, designing, licensing, manufacturing, distributing, selling marketing, promoting and/or introducing into interstate commerce, either directly or indirectly through third parties, subsidiaries or related entities, the SynchroMed® II Device. (Doc. 1, p. 3, ¶ 13). Warstler alleged asserts seven claims: 1) manufacturing defect; 2) failure to warn; 3) breach of express warranty; 4) breach of implied warranty; 5) negligent misrepresentation; 6) negligence; and 7) fraudulent misrepresentation and omission. Pending is Medtronic’s motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. (Doc. 6). Warstler responded, asking to convert the motion to dismiss to a motion for summary judgment. Warstler then asks that I deny the motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d) and to allow discovery. In the alternative, Warstler seeks fifteen days to file a response to the motion to dismiss. (Doc. 8). Medtronic has filed a response, opposing the request to convert its motion to dismiss to a motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 9). Warstler has filed a reply. (Doc. 10). Ordinarily, a court’s consideration of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) is limited to the pleadings. Reference to materials outside the pleadings may convert the motion into one for summary judgment. Jones v. City of Cincinnati, 521 F.3d 555, 562 (6th Cir. 2008). However, “when a document is referred to in the pleadings and is integral to the claims, it may be considered without converting a motion to dismiss into one for summary judgment.” Commercial Money Ctr., Inc. v. Ill. Union Ins. Co., 508 F.3d 327, 335–36 (6th Cir. 2007). Such documents include public records that are not attached to the pleadings. Barany–Snyder v. Weiner, 539 F.3d 327, 332 (6th Cir. 2008); see also Goryoka v. Quicken Loan, Inc., 519 F. App’x 926, 927 (6th Cir. 2013) (“Matters of public record may be considered on a motion to dismiss.”). The Court may take judicial notice of public and government documents because their sources “cannot reasonably be questioned.” Fed. R. Evid. 201(b); see also Colvin v. Veterans Admin. Med. Ctr., 390 F. App’x 454, 456 (6th Cir. 2010); City of Monroe Emps. Ret. Sys. v. Bridgestone Corp., 399 F.3d 651, 655 n.1 (6th Cir. 2005) (taking judicial notice of information posted on a website). The documents that Medtronic has attached to its motion to dismiss were referred to in Warstler’s complaint and/or are a matter of public record. Therefore, these documents do not convert the motion to dismiss to one for summary judgment. Goryoka, 519 F. App’x at 927; Colvin, 390 F. App’x at 456; Barany–Snyder, 539 F.3d at 332; Commercial Money, 508 F.3d at 335–36; City of Monroe, 399 F.3d at 655 n.1. 2 Accordingly, Warstler’s motion to convert (Doc. 8) is denied. Warstler has until August 31, 2016, to file a response to Medtronic’s motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). (Doc. 6). Medtronic shall have until September 15, 2016, to file its reply. So ordered. /s/ James G. Carr Sr. U.S. District Judge 3

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?