Legal Opinion
Smith v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.
District Court, S.D. Ohio
Decided March 10, 2014No. Case No. 1:13cv289PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION & ORDER
MICHAEL R. BARRETT, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court upon Defendant Smith & Nephew’s Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. 5.) Plaintiffs Lori and Todd Smith filed a Response in Opposition (Doc. 13) and Defendant filed a Reply (Doc. 15).
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs are husband and wife. (Doc. 1, ¶ 2.) Plaintiffs’ claims are based on the Smith & Nephew “R3 Acetabular System with a metal liner components” (“MoM Hip System”). The MoM Hip System was used to replace both of Plaintiff Lori Smith’s hips. (Doc. 1, Complaint ¶ 31.) Plaintiffs claim the MoM Hip System is defective.
Plaintiffs…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Tackett v. M & G POLYMERS, USA, LLCCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2009
- Heinrich v. Waiting Angels Adoption Services, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2012
- In re Porsche Cars North America, Inc.District Court, S.D. Ohio · 2012
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Schumacher v. State Automobile Mutual InsuranceDistrict Court, S.D. Ohio · 2014
- DEFRANK v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.District Court, D. New Jersey · 2020
- Gentile v. Merck & Co., Inc.District Court, S.D. Ohio · 2022