Legal Opinion

In re Coloplast Corp. Pelvic Support Systems Products Liability Litigation

District Court, S.D. West Virginia

Decided November 22, 2016No. MDL NO. 2387; Civil Action No. 2:16-cv-1391Published

1Opinion of the Court

*785MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER

JOSEPH R. GOODWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Pending before the court is Coloplast Corp.’s Motion to Dismiss on the Pleadings [ECF No. 11]. The plaintiffs responded [ECF No. 16] and Coloplast Corp. replied [ECF No. 17] making the Motion ripe for adjudication. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

I. Background

This 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…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
  2. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
  3. Giarratano v. JohnsonCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2008
  4. Cuomo v. Clearing House Ass'n, LLCSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
  5. Sandra Humphreys Marion Paul Humphreys, Jr. v. Roche Biomedical Laboratories, Inc. Hoffman-Laroche, Inc. Anna Jo Mixon William D. Crump, M.D.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1993

13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API