Lawson v. Zimmer Inc. et al
Filing
13
Order and Decision granting Defendants' 12 Motion to dismiss the complaint. The complaint is hereby dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Judge John R. Adams on 12/31/2015.(M,TL)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
Dorothy Lawson,
Plaintiff,
v.
Zimmer, Inc., et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO: 5:12CV1263
JUDGE JOHN ADAMS
ORDER AND DECISION
(Resolving Doc. 12)
Pending before the Court is Defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint (Doc.
12). Plaintiff Dorothy Lawson has not opposed the motion. The motion is hereby
GRANTED and the complaint is dismissed without prejudice.
I. Legal Standard
The Sixth Circuit stated the standard for reviewing a motion to dismiss in Assn. of
Cleveland Fire Fighters v. Cleveland, 502 F.3d 545 (6th Cir. 2007) as follows:
The Supreme Court has recently clarified the law with respect to what a
plaintiff must plead in order to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. Bell Atl.
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007). The Court stated that “a
plaintiff’s obligation to provide the grounds of his entitlement to relief
requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of
the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Id. at 1964-65 (citations and
quotation marks omitted). Additionally, the Court emphasized that even
though a complaint need not contain “detailed” factual allegations, its
“[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the
speculative level on the assumption that all the allegations in the
complaint are true.” Id. (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). In
so holding, the Court disavowed the oft-quoted Rule 12(b)(6) standard of
Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957) (recognizing “the accepted
rule that a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim
unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts
in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief”), characterizing
that rule as one “best forgotten as an incomplete, negative gloss on an
accepted pleading standard.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 563.
Id. at 548. Instead, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true,
to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129
S.Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (internal quotations omitted).
If an allegation is capable of more than one inference, this Court must construe it
in the plaintiff’s favor. Columbia Natural Res., Inc. v. Tatum, 58 F.3d 1101, 1109 (6th
Cir. 1995) (citing Allard v. Weitzman, 991 F.2d 1236, 1240 (6th Cir. 1993)). This Court
may not grant a Rule 12(b)(6) motion merely because it may not believe the plaintiff’s
factual allegations. Id. Although this is a liberal standard of review, the plaintiff still
must do more than merely assert bare legal conclusions. Id. Specifically, the complaint
must contain “either direct or inferential allegations respecting all the material elements
to sustain a recovery under some viable legal theory.” Scheid v. Fanny Farmer Candy
Shops, Inc., 859 F.2d 434, 436 (6th Cir. 1988) (quotations and emphasis omitted).
II. Facts
The short-form complaint in this matter was filed by counsel on May 18, 2012,
and at the same time counsel incorporated the long-form complaint that existed in the
pending multi-district litigation. On June 11, 2012, this matter was transferred to the
MDL. During those proceedings, Plaintiff’s counsel, Alyson Oliver, came to the belief
that Lawson’s lawsuit could not be maintained because of an inability to find an expert
who was willing to opine that Lawson’s injuries stemmed from a defective medical
2
implant. When show caused as to why the complaint should not be dismissed, Attorney
Oliver indicated that she agreed that dismissal was appropriate and thus had sought to
withdraw. The MDL court allowed her withdrawal and remanded the matter to this Court
on July 15, 2015.
On September 23, 2015, this Court ordered Lawson to notify the Court whether
she intended to maintain the suit. On October 29, 2015, Lawson indicated that she
desired the lawsuit to remain pending. On November 18, 2015, Defendants moved to
dismiss the matter. Lawson has not opposed the motion.
III. Analysis
Defendants contend that dismissal is warranted on numerous grounds.
Defendants asserts that Lawson’s claims are barred by the statute of limitations, that
venue is improper, and that Lawson has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted. On its face, the argument regarding statute of limitations appears to require
review of documents beyond the pleadings. Accordingly, the Court will not address that
issue.
Defendants, however, are correct that Lawson has failed to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted. In her initial filing, Lawson relied upon the long-form
complaint that existed in the MDL, a 131 page document detailing the alleged
shortcomings of the medical device at issue. When discovery revealed that Lawson’s
claim did not fit within the MDL framework, the matter was remanded to this District.
As such, the long-form complaint can no longer serve to provide Defendants with notice
of the allegations against them.
Moreover, there is no dispute that the short-form
complaint actually pending in this matter is inadequate. That complaint offers a series of
3
check boxes to relay claims against Defendants under any number of theories. However,
without the underlying long-form complaint, it contains no substantive factual allegations
that support any of those theories of recovery. As such, the now-pending complaint fails
to state a cause of action against Defendants.
The Court would also note that it has reviewed Defendants’ argument that venue
is improper in this District. On their face, without opposition, the arguments appear to
have merit. Nothing in the short-form complaint suggests that Zimmer Biomet Holdings
is subject to personal jurisdiction in Ohio. Moreover, nothing suggests that any of the
events giving rise to the complaint occurred in Ohio. Finally, it appears that this action
could have properly been brought in Indiana. Accordingly, it strongly appears that venue
is improper in this district. However, as the Court has found that the complaint fails to
state a claim, it need not definitively resolve the issue of venue.
IV. Conclusion
Defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted. The complaint is hereby dismissed for
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
December 31, 2015
Date
____/s/ Judge John R. Adams_______
JUDGE JOHN R. ADAMS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
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?