Legal Opinion
Stanfield v. Boston Scientific Corp.
District Court, S.D. Texas
Decided September 30, 2015No. CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:15-CV-414PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL
MELINDA HARMON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Pending before the Court in the above referenced strict liability and negligence action, removed from state court on diversity jurisdiction and seeking damages for injury suffered because of the implantation of an allegedly negligently designed, manufactured, and marketed BSC ADVANTIO DR IS pacemaker, Model K063, serial number 124393, and a Guidant DEXTRUS IS-1 right ventricular (“RV”) lead, Model 29107536, is Defendants Boston Scientific Corporation (“BSC”) and Guidant LLC’s (“Guidant’s”)1 motion to dismiss pursuant to…
2Cases cited27 opinions
- Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- In Re Katrina Canal Breaches LitigationCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2007
- Medtronic, Inc. v. LohrSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Roberts v. Baptist Healthcare System, LLCDistrict Court, E.D. Texas · 2020
- Simien v. C R Bard IncorporatedDistrict Court, E.D. Texas · 2020
- The Estate of I.C.D. v. Beaumont ISDDistrict Court, E.D. Texas · 2020