Inamed Corp. v. Medmarc Casualty Insurance

Good Law
258 F. Supp. 2d 1117·2002 WL 32080711·2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26482
United States District Court, Central District of CaliforniaNovember 4, 200200-11325 ABC(MANx)California4,799 words

Opinion

Opinion

Collins, J.

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Defendant Medmarc Casualty Insurance Company ("Defendant” or “Medmarc”) filed the above-referenced motion for summary judgment on September 23, 2002. The motion came on for hearing before this Court on November 4, 2002. After considering the materials submitted by the parties, argument of counsel and the case file, the Court hereby DENIES Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The instant suit arises out of a number of bodily injury claims filed against Plaintiffs Inamed Corporation (“Inamed”), Collagen Aesthetics, Inc. (“Collagen”), AEI, Inc. (“AEI”), McGhan Medical Corp. (“McGhan”) and Sierra Medical Technologies, Inc. (“Sierra,” and together with In-amed, Collagen, AEI and McGhan, “Plaintiffs”) by recipients of Trilueent breast implants. (First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) ¶¶ 1-13.) Trilueent breast implants, which are filled with soybean oil, are transparent during mammography, unlike silicone and saline implants, thus increasing a doctor’s ability to detect breast tumors. (FAC ¶ 2.) The Trilueent product was manufactured by Lipomatrix, Inc. (“Lipomatrix”), a company acquired by Collagen…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.