Legal Opinion
Mendez v. Shah
District Court, D. New Jersey
Decided June 27, 2014No. Civil Action No. 13-1585PublishedCited by 44 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
*287 OPINION
HILLMAN, District Judge:
Before the Court is a motion-to dismiss the second amended complaint filed by defendants Medtronic Sofamaor Danesk USA Inc., Medtronic Spine LLC, Med-tronic USA Inc., and Medtronic Inc. (collectively “Medtronic”). For the reasons stated below, the motion will be granted in part and denied in part.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff, Maria Mendez, suffered from chronic back pain. Defendant Dr. Shah performed surgery on her back on March 21, 2011 and implanted various medical devices in her back that plaintiff alleges failed and caused her injury. Plaintiffs allegations…
2Cases cited57 opinions
- Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Scheuer v. RhodesSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Phillips v. County of AlleghenyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2008
- Fowler v. UPMC SHADYSIDECourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2009
52 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by44 opinions
- Thorn v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, USA, Inc.District Court, W.D. Michigan · 2015
- In re Testosterone Replacement Therapy Products Liability Litigation Coordinated Pretrial ProceedingsDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 2015
- Mendez v. ShahDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 2015
- BARRETT v. TRI-COAST PHARMACY, INC.District Court, D. New Jersey · 2021
- BARTHOLOMEW v. NEWELL BRANDS, INC.District Court, D. New Jersey · 2020
39 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.