Legal Opinion
Carney v. KMart Corp.
District Court, S.D. West Virginia
Decided October 1, 1997No. Civ. A. No. 2:96-2111PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
HADEN, Chief Judge.
Pending is Defendant Can-Am Care Corporation’s (“Can-Am”) motion to dismiss or, alternatively, motion for sanctions against Plaintiffs Carney pursuant to Rule 37(b) or 37(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiffs filed a responsive memorandum; Can-Am has replied. The issues are ripe for review. For reasons that follow, the Court DENIES in part and GRANTS in part Can-Am’s motion.
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs Carney allege Kenneth Carney was injured while using an allegedly faulty blood glucose test strip known and marketed under the…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- John W. Wilson v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., a New York Corporation and Volkswagenwerk, A. G., a Foreign Corporation, Wolfsburg, Western GermanyCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1977
- Smith v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.District Court, S.D. West Virginia · 1995
- Daye v. General Motors Corp.District Court, M.D. North Carolina · 1997
3Cited by5 opinions
- Gene S. Jacobsen, and Cross-Appellee v. Deseret Book Company, a Utah Corporation Dean Hughes, AndCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2002
- Rambus, Inc. v. Infineon Technologies AGDistrict Court, E.D. Virginia · 2001
- Cohlmia v. Ardent Health Services, LLCDistrict Court, N.D. Oklahoma · 2008
- Hudgins v. Vermeer Manufacturing Co.District Court, E.D. Oklahoma · 2007
- ONEOK Rockies Midstream, L.L.C. v. Great Plains Technical Services Inc.District Court, N.D. Oklahoma · 2021