MCLAUGHLIN v. BAYER, CORP. et al

Filing 378

ORDER THAT DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. IT IS GRANTED INSOFAR AS IT SEEKS JUDGMENT IN DEFENDANTS' FAVOR ON THE CLAIMS OF PLAINTIFFS AS OUTLINED HEREIN. IT IS ALSO GRANTED INSOFAR AS IT SEEKS RULE 56(d) DISCOVERY WITH RESPECT TO FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT THAT MIGHT TOLL THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ON PLAINTIFF 7'S WARRANTY CLAIMS. THE MOTION IS DENIED IN ALL OTHER RESPECTS. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JOHN R. PADOVA ON 3/27/2019. 3/27/2019 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(kp, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
HELEN McLAUGHLIN
v.
BAYER ESSURE, INC., et al.
And Related Actions

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-7315

NO. 14-7316 (Ruble)
NO. 14-7318 (Stelzer)
NO. 14-7317 (Strimel)
NO. 15-0384 (Walsh)
NO. 16-1458 (Dunstan)
NO. 16-1645 (Clarke)
NO. 16-1921 (Souto)
NO. 16-2166 (Bailey)
NO. 16-2154 (Campos)
NO. 16-2717 (Bolds)
NO. 16-3049 (Tulgetske)
NO. 16-3409 (Abeyta)
NO. 16-3589 (Burgis)
NO. 16-3710 (Dong)
NO. 16-3730 (Mantor)
NO. 16-3731 (Olague)

NO. 16-3732 (Gross)
NO. 16-3733 (Johnson)
NO. 16-3766 (Summerlin)
NO. 16-3767 (Rodvill)
NO. 16-3769 (Quinton)
NO. 16-4081 (Bradford)
NO. 17-2915 (Wistrom)
NO. 17-3968 (Bobo)
NO. 17-4417 (Guess)
NO. 17-4936 (Gonzalez)
NO. 18-37 (Jenson)
NO. 18-836 (Morua)
NO. 18-837 (Galan)
NO. 18-838 (Alfaro)
NO. 18-908 (Archer)

ORDER
AND NOW, this 27th day of March, 2019, upon consideration of Defendants’ Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment (Docket No. 236 in McLaughlin), all documents submitted in
connection therewith, and the hearing held on February 11, 2019, and for the reasons stated in
the accompanying Memorandum, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion is GRANTED
IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows:
1.

The Motion is GRANTED insofar as it seeks judgment in Defendants’ favor on (1)
all of the claims of Plaintiffs 1, 2, and 12; (2) the tort claims of Plaintiffs 6, 7, and 9;
(3) the tort claims seeking damages for the migration of the left coil of Plaintiff 8; (4)
all of the warranty claims of Plaintiffs 3, 8, 10, and 11; and (5) the non-extended
warranty claims of Plaintiffs 4 and 6.

2. The Motion is also GRANTED insofar as it seeks Rule 56(d) discovery with respect
to fraudulent concealment that might toll the statute of limitations on Plaintiff 7’s
warranty claims.
3. The Motion DENIED in all other respects.

BY THE COURT:
/s/ John R. Padova, J.

_________________________________
John R. Padova, J.

2