Cases

KRAVITCH, Senior Circuit Judge: This appeal requires us to determine the preemptive effect of the Medical Device Amendments (“MDA”), 21 U.S.C. § 360e et seq., to the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”), 21 U.S.C. § 301 et seq. Lisa Goodlin brought suit against Medtronic, Inc. (“Medtronic”), alleging that her Med-tronic cardiac p

GARTH, Circuit Judge. Barbara Horn (“Horn”) appeals from the District Court’s grant of summary judgment to Thoratec Corp. (hereinafter “TCI” 1), based on its determination that Horn’s claims against TCI are preempted by the express preemption provision in the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act (the “Act”), 21 U.S.C. § 360k(a).2 We affirm. I.

ORDER ROBERT PITMAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Before the Court are Defendant Med-tronic, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss, (Dkt. 7), and the responsive pleadings thereto. After reviewing the pleadings, the relevant law, and the factual record, the Court issues the following order. I. Background Plaintiff Carolyn Green Gates (“Carolyn Gates”) brings this action against D

This opinion is subject to revision before final publication in the Pacific Reporter 2019 UT 56 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF UTAH DALE BURNINGHAM and LANA BURNINGHAM, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. WRIGHT MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY, INC. and WRIGHT MEDICAL GROUP, INC.,

ORDER CHARLENE EDWARDS HONEYWELL, District Judge. This cause comes before the Court upon the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants Medtronic, Inc. and Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc. (collectively, “Medtronic”) (Doc. 32). Plaintiffs Lori Byrnes and Matthew Byrnes (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) responded in opposition to the Motion (Doc. 36). Medtronic replied in further support of its Motion

229 F.Supp.2d 381 (2002) Barbara E. HORN, Executrix of the Estate of Daniel Ray Horn, Deceased, Plaintiff v. THERMO CARDIOSYSTEMS, INC., Defendant No. 4:CV-00-779. United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania. November 7, 2002. *382 *383 John M. Humphrey, Reiders, Travis, Humphrey, Harris,

MARCUS, Circuit Judge: In this products liability suit, Boston Scientific Corporation (BSC) appeals from various orders and a final judgment in favor of the plaintiff, Amal Eghnayem. Eghnayem alleged substantial injuries caused by the Pinnacle Pelvic Floor Repair Kit, a transvaginal mesh prescription medical device manufactured and sold b

ORDER THOMAS W. THRASH, JR., District Judge. This is an employment discrimination action. It is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation [Doc. 11] of the Magistrate Judge recommending that the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 7] be denied. No objections to the Report and Recommendation were filed. The Court approves and adopts the Report and Recommendation as the judgment of the Court. The

592 F.Supp.2d 1147 (2009) In re MEDTRONIC, INC. SPRINT FIDELIS LEADS PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, This document relates to: All Cases. Multidistrict Litigation No. 08-1905 (RHK/JSM). United States District Court, D. Minnesota. January 5, 2009. *1148 Daniel E. Gustafson, Gustafson Gluek, PLLC, Plaintiffs' lead counsel, Robert K.

455 F.Supp.2d 709 (2006) In re: SULZER HIP PROSTHESIS AND KNEE PROSTHESIS LIABILITY LITIGATION This Document Relates to: Howard v. Sulzer Orthopedics, Inc., 1:03CV9006 Burgess v. Sulzer Orthopedics, Inc., 1:04CV9005 No. 1:01-CV-9000. United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division. October 3, 2006. *710

MEMORANDUM & ORDER O’MALLEY, District Judge. This opinion discusses three cases that have been transferred to this Court as related to Multi-District Litigation (“MDL”) No. 1401, known as In re: Sulzer Orthopedics Inc. Hip Prosthesis and Knee Prosthesis Products Liability Litigation1 The three cases are: (1) Moore v. Sulzer Orthoped

67 F.Supp.2d 21 (1999) Debbie P. HAIDAK, Plaintiff, v. COLLAGEN CORPORATION, Defendant. No. Civ.A. 98-30056-FHF. United States District Court, D. Massachusetts. October 8, 1999. *22 Steven L. Hoffman, Sugarman & Sugarman, Boston, MA, for Debbie P. Haidak, plaintiff. Joe W. Redden, Jr., W. Curt Webb, Houston, TX, Daniel

BIRCH, Circuit Judge: Defendants-appellants Manuel Hernandez and Tito Daniel Estupinan appeal their convictions under the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act, 46 U.S.C. app. § 1901 et seq. (1994 & Supp. V 1999) (“MDLEA”). They were convicted of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine while on board a vessel subject to the jurisdictio

465 F.Supp.2d 886 (2006) In Re: MEDTRONIC, INC., IMPLANTABLE DEFIBRILLATORS LITIGATION No. 05-MDL-1726(JMRAJB). United States District Court, D. Minnesota. November 28, 2006. *888 ORDER ROSENBAUM, Chief Judge. The Medtronic, Inc., Implantable Defibrillator Multidistrict Litigation ("MDL") cases have been transfer

171 F.Supp.2d 1 (2001) Arnold W. WEBSTER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. PACESETTER, INC. Defendant. No. 01-00928 (ESH). United States District Court, District of Columbia. November 1, 2001. *2 Herbert Vincent McKnight, Jr., Ashcraft & Gerel, Washington, DC, for Plaintiffs. Paul Joseph Maloney, Carr Goodson, P.C., Washington,

Opinions of the United 2004 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 7-20-2004 Horn v. Thoratec Corp Precedential or Non-Prec

Argued March 15, 1932. Mary E. Reardon, widow of Daniel H. Reardon, died February 3, 1929, testate, and without issue. The Tarentum Savings Trust Company, executor, filed its account, claiming credit, among other things, for payment of $9,016.84 upon a note to Peoples National Bank of Tarentum, the appellant. The guardian ad litem appointed for the minor legatees under the will objected to this credit, and, after hearing, the learned court below disallowed it and surcharged the executor with