John Heeney Julie Heeney v. Mansfield Scientific, Inc. Boston Scientific Radionics, Inc.

101 F.3d 705 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. John HEENEY; Julie Heeney, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. MANSFIELD SCIENTIFIC, INC.; Boston Scientific; Radionics, Inc., Defendants-Appellees. No. 95-55797. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Oct. 8, 1995. Decided Nov. 13, 1996. Before: O'SCANNLAIN, T.G. NELSON and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM * 2 Is this diversity products liability action ("Heeney II "), filed two years after a medical malpractice action involving the same injuries ("Heeney I ") was filed, time-barred? The parties are familiar with the facts and we need not recite them here. The complaint in Heeney v. Webster Laboratories, Inc., Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC128626 ("Heeney III "), and the notice of appeal and unpublished decision of the California Court of Appeal in Heeney III, Case No. B096863 (filed October 8, 1996), are directly related to this appeal. See United States ex rel. Robinson…