Legal Opinion
Funk v. Stryker Corp.
District Court, S.D. Texas
Decided December 1, 2009No. Civil Action H:09-00733PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Memorandum Opinion & Order
GRAY H. MILLER, District Judge.
Pending before the court is the Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss of defendants Stryker Corporation, Stryker Sales Corporation, and Howmedica Osteonics (collectively “HOC”). Dkt. 7. Upon consideration of HOC’s motion, plaintiff Ronald Funk’s response, HOC’s reply brief, and Funk’s proposed amended complaint, the motion to dismiss is GRANTED. Plaintiffs complaint is DISMISSED. 1
I. Background
Funk alleges he was injured by a defective Trident hip implant designed, manufactured, and marketed by HOC. He claims that after surgery he experienced…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Medtronic, Inc. v. LohrSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
- Collins v. Morgan Stanley Dean WitterCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2000
- Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2008
- Boykin v. KeyCorpCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2008
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Cornett v. Johnson & Johnson & Cordis Corp.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 2010
- Gross v. Stryker Corp.District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 2012
- US Ex Rel. Bennett v. Medtronic, Inc.District Court, S.D. Texas · 2010
- Ilarraza v. Medtronic, Inc.District Court, E.D. New York · 2009
- Lewkut v. Stryker Corp.District Court, S.D. Texas · 2010
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.