Haddon v. Johnson & Johnson et al
Filing
76
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER (Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment) The 60 MOTION by Ethicon, Inc., Ethicon, LLC, Johnson & Johnson for Partial Summary Judgment is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Ethicon's Motion is GRANTE D with regard to the following claims: manufacturing defect, fraud, fraudulent concealment, constructive fraud, negligent misrepresentation, breach of warranty, negligent infliction of emotional distress, gross negligence, and unjust enrichment. Ethicon's Motion is DENIED in all other respects. Signed by Judge Joseph R. Goodwin on 6/30/2017. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (kp)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
JUDY HADDON,
Plaintiff,
v.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:12-cv-02200
ETHICON, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
(Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment)
Pending before the court is the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [ECF
No. 60] filed by defendants Ethicon, Inc. and Johnson & Johnson (collectively,
“Ethicon”). As set forth below, Ethicon’s Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED
in part.
I.
Background
This action involves a Tennessee plaintiff who was implanted with a mesh
product manufactured by Ethicon, Tension-free Vaginal Tape (“TVT”), on May 27,
2009, at Harton Regional Medical Center, Tullahoma, Tennessee, by Dr. Michael C.
Good. Am. Short Form Compl. [ECF No. 19] ¶¶ 1–12. The case resides in one of seven
MDLs assigned to me by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation concerning the
use of transvaginal surgical mesh to treat pelvic organ prolapse (“POP”) and stress
urinary incontinence (“SUI”). In the seven MDLs, there are more than 50,000 cases
currently pending, approximately 30,000 of which are in the Ethicon MDL,
MDL 2327.
In an effort to efficiently and effectively manage this massive MDL, the court
decided to conduct pretrial discovery and motions practice on an individualized basis
so that once a case is trial-ready (that is, after the court has ruled on all summary
judgment motions, among other things), it can then be promptly transferred or
remanded to the appropriate district for trial. To this end, the court ordered the
plaintiffs and defendants to submit a joint list of 200 of the oldest cases in the Ethicon
MDL that name only Ethicon, Inc., Ethicon, LLC, and/or Johnson & Johnson. These
cases became part of a “wave” of cases to be prepared for trial and, if necessary,
remanded. See Pretrial Order No. 210, In re Ethicon, Inc. Pelvic Repair Sys. Prods.
Liab.
Litig.,
No.
2:12-md-002327,
Dec.
18,
2015,
available
at
http://www.wvsd.uscourts.gov/MDL/ethicon/orders.html. The plaintiff ’s case was
selected as an “Ethicon Wave 3 case.”
II.
Legal Standards
A. Summary Judgment
To obtain summary judgment, the moving party must show that there is no
genuine dispute as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). In considering a motion for
summary judgment, the court will not “weigh the evidence and determine the truth
of the matter.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986). Instead, the
court will draw any permissible inference from the underlying facts in the light most
2
favorable to the nonmoving party. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp.,
475 U.S. 574, 587–88 (1986).
Although the court will view all underlying facts and inferences in the light
most favorable to the nonmoving party, the nonmoving party nonetheless must offer
some “concrete evidence from which a reasonable juror could return a verdict” in his
or her favor. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 256. Summary judgment is appropriate when the
nonmoving party has the burden of proof on an essential element of his or her case
and does not make, after adequate time for discovery, a showing sufficient to establish
that element. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322–23 (1986). The nonmoving
party must satisfy this burden of proof by offering more than a mere “scintilla of
evidence” in support of his or her position. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252. Likewise,
conclusory allegations or unsupported speculation, without more, are insufficient to
preclude the granting of a summary judgment motion. See Dash v. Mayweather, 731
F.3d 303, 311 (4th Cir. 2013); Stone v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 105 F.3d 188, 191 (4th
Cir. 1997).
B. Choice of Law
If a plaintiff files her claim directly into the MDL in the Southern District of
West Virginia, as Ms. Haddon did in this case, the court consults the choice-of-law
rules of the state where the plaintiff was implanted with the product. See Sanchez v.
Boston Scientific Corp., 2:12-cv-05762, 2014 WL 202787, at *4 (S.D. W. Va. Jan. 17,
2014) (“For cases that originate elsewhere and are directly filed into the MDL, the
3
court will follow the better-reasoned authority that applies the choice-of-law rules of
the originating jurisdiction, which in our case is the state in which the plaintiff was
implanted with the product.”). Ms. Haddon underwent the TVT implantation surgery
in Tennessee. Thus, the choice-of-law principles of Tennessee guide the court’s choiceof-law analysis.
Tennessee law employs “the most significant relationship test” to determine
which state’s substantive law to apply in a tort action. Hataway v. McKinley, 830
S.W.2d 53, 59 (Tenn. 1992). Under this test, the court must evaluate the contacts of
each interested state and determine which state “has the most significant contacts”
with the lawsuit. Id. In doing so, the court balances four factors: “(a) the place where
the injury occurred, (b) the place where the conduct causing the injury occurred, (c)
the domicile, residence, nationality, place of incorporation and place of business of
the parties, [and] (d) the place where the relationship, if any, between the parties is
centered.” Id. Here, the plaintiffs are residents of Tennessee, Ms. Haddon was
implanted with the product at issue in Tennessee, and Ms. Haddon’s alleged injuries
and follow-up care occurred in Tennessee. Accordingly, I will apply Tennessee’s
substantive law to this case.
III.
Analysis
Ethicon argues it is entitled to summary judgment because the plaintiff’s
claims are without evidentiary or legal support.
4
A. Conceded Claims
The plaintiff concedes the following claims: manufacturing defect, fraud,
fraudulent concealment, constructive fraud, negligent misrepresentation, breach of
warranty, negligent infliction of emotional distress, gross negligence, and unjust
enrichment. Accordingly, Ethicon’s Motion regarding those claims is GRANTED.
B. All Remaining Claims
The court FINDS that genuine disputes of material fact exist regarding the
plaintiff’s remaining claims challenged by Ethicon. Accordingly, Ethicon’s Motion as
to all remaining claims is DENIED.
IV.
Conclusion
For the reasons discussed above, it is ORDERED that Ethicon’s Motion for
Summary Judgment [ECF No. 60] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
Ethicon’s Motion is GRANTED with regard to the following claims: manufacturing
defect,
fraud,
fraudulent
concealment,
constructive
fraud,
negligent
misrepresentation, breach of warranty, negligent infliction of emotional distress,
gross negligence, and unjust enrichment. Ethicon’s Motion is DENIED in all other
respects.
The court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record
and any unrepresented party.
ENTER:
5
June 30, 2017
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?