Legal Opinion
Mendez v. Shah
District Court, D. New Jersey
Decided March 30, 2015No. Civil Action No. 13-1585PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
HILLMAN, District Judge:
Before the Court is a motion to dismiss the third amended complaint filed by defendants Medtronic Sofamaor Danesk USA Inc., Medtronic Spine LLC, Med-tronic USA Inc., and Medtronic Inc. (collectively “Medtronic”). For thé reasons stated below, the motion will be granted.
I. BACKGROUND
The factual background was summarized in the Court’s earlier Opinion, Mendez v. Shah, 28 F.Supp.3d 282 (D.N.J.2014), and will not be repeated here.
Procedurally, the Court previously granted Medtronic’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s second amended complaint in part. The Court dismissed…
2Cases cited37 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
32 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- DO NOT FILE IN THIS CASE- TRANSFERRED TO CAMDEN - NEW CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:19-cv-15627District Court, D. New Jersey · 2020
- In Re: Testosterone Replacement Therapy Products Liability LitigationDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 2018
- Narragansett Bay Insurance Company v. House of Rohl, LLC, et al.District Court, D. New Jersey · 2026
- PINEDA v. LAKE CONSUMER PRODUCTS, INC.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2025
- VICENTE v. DePUY SYNTHES COMPANIESDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 2021
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.