Armstrong v. Biotronik Inc.

Full title: KIMBERLY ARMSTRONG, ET AL. v. BIOTRONIK, INC.

Court: United States District Court, Western District of Louisiana

Date published: Sep 25, 2023

1:21-CV-04368 (W.D. La. Sep. 25, 2023)

Opinion

1:21-CV-04368

09-25-2023

KIMBERLY ARMSTRONG, ET AL. v. BIOTRONIK, INC.

ROBERT R. SUMMERHAYS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

PEREZ-MONTES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

JUDGMENT

ROBERT R. SUMMERHAYS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

For the reasons set forth in the Report and Recommendation, and following an independent review of the record, including the objections filed to the Report and Recommendation, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 26] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, as follows:

• The motion is DENIED to the extent it seeks dismissal of Plaintiffs' claims for unreasonably dangerous construction and composition (manufacturing);

• The motion is GRANTED to the extent it seeks dismissal of Plaintiffs' claims for design defects, and those claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as expressly preempted;

• The motion is GRANTED to the extent it seeks dismissal of Plaintiffs' claims for inadequate warnings as to potential defects in the product, and those claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as expressly preempted;

• The motion is DENIED to the extent it seeks dismissal of Plaintiffs' claims for inadequate warnings due to the failure to comply with FDA procedures for documentation and notification of adverse events;

• The motion is GRANTED to the extent it seeks dismissal of Plaintiffs' express warranty claim, and that claim is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion for Limited Discovery is DENIED.