Lindahl v. C. R. Bard, Inc. et al
Filing
20
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 9 MOTION by Natalie Lindahl to Adjudicate Lien and Seeking a Determination of the Value of Debit; and denying as moot 15 MOTION by Plaintiff's Funding Holding, Inc. to Dismiss 9 MOTION by Natalie Lindahl to Adjudicate Lien and Seeking a Determination of the Value of Debit, as more fully set forth herein. Signed by Judge Joseph R. Goodwin on 7/11/2018. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (kp)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
IN RE: C. R. BARD, INC.,
PELVIC REPAIR SYSTEM
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION
MDL NO. 2187
THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO
Natalie Lindahl v. C. R. Bard, Inc., et al.
Civil Action No.: 2:17-cv-02611
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the court is the Motion to Adjudicate Lien and Seeking a
Determination of the Value of the Debt [ECF No. 9] filed by the plaintiff, and the
Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Motion [ECF No. 15] filed by Plaintiff’s Funding
Holding, Inc. d/b/a LawCash (“LawCash”). Both Motions are ripe for adjudication
because the briefing is complete. For the reasons stated below, the Motion to
Adjudicate Lien is DENIED, and the Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED
as moot.
I.
Background
This case resides in one of seven MDLs assigned to me by the Judicial Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation (“MDL”) concerning the use of transvaginal surgical mesh
to treat pelvic organ prolapse (“POP”) and stress urinary incontinence (“SUI”).
Specifically, this case resides in the C.R. Bard, Inc. (“Bard”) MDL, MDL 2187. The
MDL Panel created the Bard MDL, originally styled as “In re: Avaulta Pelvic Support
Systems Products Liability Litigation,” to promote the just and efficient conduct of
actions involving common questions of fact related to “allegations of defects in various
models of the Avaulta BioSynthetic Support Systems manufactured, sold and/or
distributed by Bard and/or Covidien.” Transfer Order 1 [ECF No. 1], In re: C.R. Bard,
Inc., Pelvic Repair Sys. Prods. Liab. Litig., No. 2:10-md-02187. Thus, the actions
centralized as part of the MDL “share[d] factual questions concerning such matters
as the design, manufacture, safety, testing, marketing, and performance of these
devices.” Id. Subsequently, the MDL Panel renamed the Bard MDL to reflect the fact
that “the litigation has evolved to encompass additional pelvic repair system products
also manufactured by C.R. Bard, Inc., and related entities.” Order Renaming
Litigation [ECF No. 163], In re: C.R. Bard, Inc., Pelvic Repair Sys. Prods. Liab. Litig.,
No. 2:10-md-02187.
In this particular case, the plaintiff was implanted with a Bard PelviLace
BioUrethral pelvic mesh product on August 8, 2011. Subsequently, the plaintiff
received financing from LawCash in the amount of $21,000 to have the PelviLace
product surgically removed. On May 1, 2015, the plaintiff had the PelviLace product
surgically removed.
On April 28, 2017, the plaintiff direct-filed this case in the Bard MDL in the
Southern District of West Virginia. Compl. [ECF No. 1]. The plaintiff named Bard
and Tissue Science Laboratories Limited (“TSL”) as defendants. Id. ¶ 6. On April 10,
2018, the court placed this case on the pending inactive docket after being advised
that the plaintiff, Bard, and TSL had agreed to a settlement. Inactive Docket Order
2
[ECF No. 12]. As of the date of this Order, this case remains on the pending inactive
docket.
II.
Discussion
In the Motion to Adjudicate Lien, the plaintiff asks this court to declare the
alleged lien from LawCash to be null and void, and to reduce the unsecured debt “to
a reasonable amount.” Mem. of Law in Supp. of Pl’s. Mot. to Adjudicate Lien 7 [ECF
No. 10]. In the Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Motion, LawCash argues that the
plaintiff’s Motion should be dismissed due to lack of personal jurisdiction, lack of
subject matter jurisdiction, improper venue, a consent to arbitration, and because the
plaintiff’s Motion fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. LawCash’s
Mot. to Dismiss Pl’s. Mot. 1.
After reviewing the Motions and the arguments presented by the plaintiff and
LawCash, I FIND that the plaintiff’s Motion to Adjudicate Lien is not properly before
the court. The plaintiff’s dispute over the validity and value of her debt with LawCash
does not involve “factual questions concerning such matters as the design,
manufacture, safety, testing, marketing, and performance of” pelvic mesh products
manufactured by Bard. See Transfer Order 1 [ECF No. 1], In re: C.R. Bard, Inc.,
Pelvic Repair Sys. Prods. Liab. Litig., No. 2:10-md-02187. Furthermore, LawCash has
never been joined in this litigation, and is not a defendant in this case. Therefore, the
plaintiff ’s dispute with LawCash does not belong in the Bard MDL, and is not
properly before the court.
3
III.
Conclusion
The court ORDERS that the plaintiff’s Motion to Adjudicate Lien [ECF No. 9]
is DENIED and LawCash’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Motion [ECF No. 15] is
DENIED as moot.
The Clerk is DIRECTED to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and
any unrepresented party.
ENTER:
4
July 11, 2018
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?