Legal Opinion
Eidson v. Medtronic, Inc.
District Court, N.D. California
Decided May 13, 2014No. Case Nos.: 13-CV-02049, 13-CV-01502PublishedCited by 20 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS RICHARD EIDSON’S COMPLAINT AND SCOTT AND APRIL BELL’S COMPLAINT
LUCY H. KOH, United States District Judge
Plaintiffs Scott and April Bell (“the Bells”) commenced this action on April 3, 2013, alleging that Scott Bell suffered harmful side effects following a spinal fusion operation in which his surgeon used a spinal fusion device produced by Medtronic, Inc. and Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”). ECF Bell No. 37, 13-CV-01502, Bell First Amended Complaint (hereinafter “Bell complaint”).1…
2Cases cited56 opinions
- Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Lujan v. Defenders of WildlifeSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Foman v. DavisSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
- Lopez v. SmithCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2000
51 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by20 opinions
- Charles Schwab Corp. v. Bank of America Corp.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2018
- Martin v. Medtronic, Inc.District Court, D. Arizona · 2014
- In re Smith & Nephew Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR) Hip Implant Prods. Liab. Litig.District Court, D. Maryland · 2018
- Hawkins v. Medtronic, Inc.District Court, E.D. California · 2014
- Glennen v. Allergan, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2016
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.