DuRocher v. Riddell, Inc.
District Court, S.D. Indiana
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT [DKT. NO. 76]
SARAH EVANS BARKER, District Judge.
I. Introduction.
Defendants, collectively referred to as Riddell, move to dismiss Plaintiffs John DuRocher and Darin Harris’s Second Amended Complaint (SAC) in its entirety. Plaintiffs assert four claims for relief in their SAC: (1) Medical Monitoring; (2) Negligence; (3) Strict Liability for Design Defect; and (4) Strict Liability for Manufacturing Defect. [SAC ¶¶ 164-94.] For the following reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. No. 76] is GRANTED IN PART and…
2Cases cited47 opinions
- Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Robbins Ex Rel. Robbins v. Oklahoma Ex Rel. Department of Human ServicesCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2008
- Tamayo v. BlagojevichCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2008
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Concentra Health Services, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2007
42 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Eli v. Coloplast Corp.District Court, N.D. Indiana · 2021
- Hall v. Ethicon, Inc.District Court, N.D. Indiana · 2020
- Johnson v. Centrome IncDistrict Court, N.D. Indiana · 2021