Legal Opinion
In Re Sulzer Orthopedics Inc. Hip Prosthesis & Knee Prosthesis Products Liability Litigation
District Court, N.D. Ohio
Decided August 25, 2004No. 1:01-CV-9000. MDL NO. 1401, 1:03-CV-9007PublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the Court
O’MALLEY, District Judge.
For the reasons stated below: (1) plaintiffs’ motion to amend the complaint (docket no. 10) is DENIED; (2) Sulzer’s motion to stay discovery (docket no. 13) is DENIED; and (8) Sulzer’s motion for summary judgment (docket no. 2338, in related case no. 01-CV-9000) is GRANTED. Accordingly, this case is DISMISSED.
I. Procedural History and Undisputed Facts.
The following facts are not in dispute. Plaintiff Norman Stahl was implanted with one of the “Affected Products” that are the subject of the Multi-District Litigation pending before this Court in the case known as In Re:…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1970
- Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 94,768 Phil A. Street and Clyde H. Street v. J.C. Bradford & CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1990
- Frito-Lay, Inc. v. Barton Willoughby, D/B/A Willoughby FarmsCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1988
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Howard v. Zimmer, Inc.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 2013