Legal Opinion
Eidson v. Medtronic, Inc.
District Court, N.D. California
Decided October 3, 2013No. Case Nos.: 13-CV-02049-LHK, 13-CV-01502-LHKPublishedCited by 37 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS SCOTT AND APRIL BELL’S COMPLAINT, AND GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS RICHARD E ID-SON’S COMPLAINT
LUCY H. KOH, United States District Judge
Plaintiffs Scott and April Bell bring this action based on harmful side effects Scott Bell suffered after undergoing spinal surgery in which his surgeon used a medical device produced by Medtronic, Inc. and Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”). ECF Bell No. 1 at 1 (“Bell Complaint”).1 Plaintiff Richard Eidson also brings this action based on harmful…
2Cases cited44 opinions
- Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Foman v. DavisSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
- Lopez v. SmithCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2000
- Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd.Supreme Court of the United States · 2007
39 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by37 opinions
- Schouest v. Medtronic, Inc.District Court, S.D. Texas · 2014
- Beavers-Gabriel v. Medtronic, Inc.District Court, D. Hawaii · 2014
- Thorn v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, USA, Inc.District Court, W.D. Michigan · 2015
- Mohsin v. California Department of Water ResourcesDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2014
- Eidson v. Medtronic, Inc.District Court, N.D. California · 2014
32 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.