BURGIS et al v. BAYER CORP., et al

Filing 55

ORDER THAT THE DEFENDANTS' OMNIBUS MOTION TO DISMISS AND THE SEPARATE BUT IDENTICAL MOTION TO DISMISS FILED IN 17-CV-2915 ARE GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED AS FOLLOWS: THE MOTIONS ARE GRANTED TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY SEEK THE DISMISSAL OF THE PORTIO N OF THE NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION CLAIM IN COUNT IV THAT RESTS ON THE STATEMENTS IN PARAGRAPHS 208(m)-(v), (x)-(z), (aa)-(bb), AND (dd)-(ff); IN ALL OTHER RESPECTS THE MOTIONS ARE DENIED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JOHN R. PADOVA ON 10/3/2017; 10/3/2017 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED. (tjd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ALEXANDRA DUNSTON

CIVIL ACTION NO. 16-1458

v.

BAYER ESSURE, INC., et al.

And Related Actions

NO.
NO.
NO.
NO.
NO.
NO.
NO.
NO.
NO.

16-1645 (Clarke)
16-1921 (Souto)
16-2166 (Bailey)
16-2154 (Campos)
16-2717 (Morgan)
16-3049 (Tulgetske)
16-3409 (Abbey)
16-3589 (Burgis)
16-3710 (Donahue)

NO.
NO.
NO.
NO.
NO.
NO.
NO.
NO.
NO.
NO.

16-3730 (Mantor)
16-3731 (O'Donnell)
16-3732 (Gross)
16-3733 (Johnson)
16-3766 (Summerlin)
16-3767 (Rodvill)
16-3768 (Bernal)
16-3769 (Aponte)
16-4081 (Bradford)
17-2915 (Winstrom)

ORDER
AND NOW, this 3rd day of October, 2017, upon consideration of Defendants' Omnibus

Motion to Dismiss, the separate, but identical, Motion to Dismiss filed in Winstrom v. Bayer
Corp., Civ. A. No. 17-2915, and all documents filed in connection with both Motions, and for the
reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the
Motions are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows:
1.

The Motions are GRANTED to the extent that they seek the dismissal of the
portion of the negligent misrepresentation claim in Count IV that rests on the
statements in Paragraphs 208(m)-(v), (x)-(z), (aa)-(bb), and (dd)-(ff), and Count
IV is DISMISSED to the extent that it rests on the statements in Paragraphs
208(m)-(v), (x)-(z), (aa)-(bb), and (dd)-(ff).

2.

In all other respects, the Motions are DENIED.