Legal Opinion
Martin v. Medtronic, Inc.
District Court, D. Arizona
Decided July 23, 2014No. 2:14-cv-0385-HRHPublishedCited by 17 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
H. RUSSEL HOLLAND, District Judge.
Motion to Dismiss
Defendants move to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint.1 This motion is opposed.2 Oral argument was requested but is not deemed necessary.
Background
Plaintiffs are Debra and Patrick Martin. Defendants sire Medtronic, Inc. and Med-tronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc.
Defendants are alleged to have “researched, developed, manufactured, marketed, promoted, advertised, sold and distributed” a medical device known as the Infuse® Bone Graft device.3 The Infuse device “consists of (1) a metallic spinal fusion cage (the LTCageTM); (2) the bone graft…
2Cases cited31 opinions
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Medtronic, Inc. v. LohrSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
- Lee v. City of Los AngelesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2001
- Cafasso v. General Dynamics C4 Systems, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2011
- Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs' Legal CommitteeSupreme Court of the United States · 2001
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Walter Shuker v. Smith & Nephew PLCCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2018
- Aaron v. Medtronic, Inc.District Court, S.D. Ohio · 2016
- Thorn v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, USA, Inc.District Court, W.D. Michigan · 2015
- Williams v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.District Court, D. Maryland · 2015
- Arvizu v. Medtronic Inc.District Court, D. Arizona · 2014
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.