Eidson

Eidson v. Medtronic, Inc.

Good Law
40 F. Supp. 3d 1202·2014 WL 1996024
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaMay 13, 2014Case Nos.: 13-CV-02049, 13-CV-01502California17,311 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Koh, J.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS RICHARD EIDSON’S COMPLAINT AND SCOTT AND APRIL BELL’S COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs Scott and April Bell (“the Bells”) commenced this action on April 3, 2013, alleging that Scott Bell suffered harmful side effects following a spinal fusion operation in which his surgeon used a spinal fusion device produced by Medtronic, Inc. and Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”). ECF Bell No. 37, 13-CV-01502, Bell First Amended Complaint (hereinafter “Bell complaint”). 1 Plaintiff Richard Eidson *1209 (“Eidson”) brought this action on May 6, 2013, also based on harmful effects he suffered after undergoing spinal surgery in which his surgeon used the same medical device produced by Defendants. ECF Eidson No. 38, 13-CV-02049, Eidson First Amended Complaint (hereinafter “Eidson complaint”). The two cases have been related because they involve the same product and similar questions of law. ECF Bell No. 23. On October 3, 2013, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Bells’ complaint and granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss Eidson’s complaint. Eid-son v. Medtronic, Inc.,…

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.