Miller v. GE Healthcare Inc. et al

Filing 50

ENTRY AND ORDER granting 36 Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint. After review of the Motion to Dismiss and the Defendants' respective supporting memoranda, and further noting that the Motion to Dismiss is unopposed, it is hereby GRAN TED. The claims against the GE Defendants are DISMISSED under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(5) and 12(b)(6). The claims against the Guerbet Defendants and Mallinckrodt Defendants are DISMISSED under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Signed by Judge Thomas M. Rose on 10-19-2018. (de)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
CAPTAIN SEAN MILLER (RET.),
Plaintiff,
v.
GE HEALTHCARE, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Case No. 3:18-cv-113
Judge Thomas M. Rose

ENTRY AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S
COMPLAINT (DOC. 36)
This case is before the Court on the Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 36)
pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(5) and 12(b)(6) filed by Defendants GE
Healthcare Inc., GE Healthcare AS, and General Electric Company (“GE Defendants”).
Defendants Guerbet LLC and Liebel-Flarsheim Company, LLC (“Guerbet Defendants”) and
Defendants Mallinckrodt Inc. and Mallinckrodt LLC (“Mallinckrodt Defendants”) join the Motion
to Dismiss in all respects concerning Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), but do not join the
Motion to Dismiss with respect to Rule 12(b)(5).
The GE Defendants filed the Motion to Dismiss on May 3, 2018. The Court granted the
Guerbet Defendants’ and Mallinckrodt Defendants’ respective Motions for Joinder in the Motion
to Dismiss on May 17, 2018. The time for Plaintiff to respond to the Motion to Dismiss, whether
calculated from the date it was originally filed or the additional parties’ joinder, has long since
passed. Plaintiffs had moved under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to centralize pre-trial proceedings in this
action with sixteen other actions in the Northern District of California or, alternatively, the District

of Massachusetts. At no time did Plaintiffs move to stay this case pending the MDL Panel’s
determination of that issue. Accordingly, this case has not been stayed. The Court deferred
ruling on the Motion to Dismiss pending the MDL Panel’s decision in deference to the transferee
court, if the case had been centralized.

The MDL Panel has now ruled, however, that

“centralization would not serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses or further the just and
efficient conduct of this litigation” and denied Plaintiffs’ motion under § 1407. (Doc. 49 at 2.)
The Court no longer has any reason to delay its decision.
After review of the Motion to Dismiss and the Defendants’ respective supporting
memoranda, and further noting that the Motion to Dismiss is unopposed, it is hereby GRANTED.
The claims against the GE Defendants are DISMISSED under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
12(b)(5) and 12(b)(6). The claims against the Guerbet Defendants and Mallinckrodt Defendants
are DISMISSED under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
DONE and ORDERED in Dayton, Ohio, this Friday, October 19, 2018.
s/Thomas M. Rose
________________________________
THOMAS M. ROSE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2