Legal Opinion
Arvizu v. Medtronic Inc.
District Court, D. Arizona
Decided August 25, 2014No. CV-14-00792-PHX-DGCPublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
DAVID G. CAMPBELL, District Judge.
Defendants Medtronic, Inc. and Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc. have filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). Doc. 20. The motion is fully briefed. The Court will grant the motion in part and deny it in part.1
I. Background.
Defendants produce the “Infuse Device,” which is the Class III medical device at issue in this case. Doc. 20 at 4. The Infuse Device consists of a “metallic spinal fusion cage,” known as the LT-Cage, a “bone graft substitute which consists of liquid rhBMP-2” (“Bone Protein”), and “an absorbable collagen sponge (ACS) which…
2Cases cited29 opinions
- Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Medtronic, Inc. v. LohrSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
- Daniels-Hall v. National Education Ass'nCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2010
- Evel Knievel Krystal Knievel v. Espn, a Subsidiary of Walt Disney, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2005
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Walter Shuker v. Smith & Nephew PLCCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2018
- Thorn v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, USA, Inc.District Court, W.D. Michigan · 2015
- Hawkins v. Medtronic, Inc.District Court, E.D. California · 2014
- Debra v. Medtronic, Inc.District Court, D. Arizona · 2014
- Wright v. Medtronic, Inc.District Court, W.D. Michigan · 2015
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.