Legal Opinion
Debra v. Medtronic, Inc.
District Court, D. Arizona
Decided November 24, 2014No. 2:14-cv-0385-HRHPublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
H. RUSSEL HOLLAND, District Judge.
Motion to Strike; Motion to Dismiss
Defendants move to dismiss1 plaintiffs’ first amended complaint. This motion is opposed.2 In the alternative, defendants move to strike portions of plaintiffs’ first amended complaint.3 The motion to strike is opposed.4 Oral argument was requested and has been heard on both motions. Background
Plaintiffs are Debra and Patrick Martin. Defendants are Medtronic, Inc. and Med-tronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc.
Defendants manufacture and sell a Class III medical devise known as Infuse® Bone Graft/LT-Cage Lumbar Tapered Fusion…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Michael Lacey v. Joseph ArpaioCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2012
- Cafasso v. General Dynamics C4 Systems, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2011
- Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2008
- Chudasama v. Mazda Motor Corp.Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1997
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Angeles v. Medtronic, Inc.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 2015
- Jones v. MedtronicDistrict Court, D. Arizona · 2015
- Baca v. Johnson & JohnsonDistrict Court, D. Arizona · 2020
- Grady Hillis v. National Association of RealtorsDistrict Court, D. Arizona · 2022
- Hix v. Boston Scientific CorporationDistrict Court, D. Arizona · 2019
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.