Hawkins v. Medtronic, Inc.
District Court, E.D. California
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE AND GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
ANTHONY W. ISHII, Senior District Judge.
I. INTRODUCTION
Defendants MEDTRONIC, INC. and MEDTRONIC SOFAMOR DANEK USA, INC. bring motions to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and to strike allegedly redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous portions of Plaintiff GARY HAWKINS’ complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f). For'the reasons set forth below, Defendants’ motion to dismiss will…
2Cases cited57 opinions
- Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Lopez v. SmithCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2000
- Jena Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Department Al Olsen, Police Chief, Individually and as a Police AgentCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1990
- Hishon v. King & SpaldingSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
52 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Arthur v. Medtronic, Inc.District Court, E.D. Missouri · 2015
- Wright v. Medtronic, Inc.District Court, W.D. Michigan · 2015
- Glennen v. Allergan, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2016
- Markland v. Insys Therapeutics, Inc.District Court, M.D. Florida · 2017
- (PC) Young v. LeeDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2020
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.