United States District Court, S.D. West Virginia, Charleston Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER (DEFENDANTS' MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT)
R. GOODWIN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
before the court is a Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No.
93] filed by defendants Ethicon, Inc. and Johnson &
Johnson (collectively “Ethicon”) against
plaintiffs Dee and Timothy McBrayer. The plaintiffs filed a
Response [ECF No. 105] and Ethicon filed a Reply [ECF No.
108]. As set forth below, Ethicon's Motion is GRANTED in
part and DENIED in part.
case resides in one of seven MDLs assigned to me by the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation concerning the use
of transvaginal surgical mesh to treat pelvic organ prolapse
(“POP”) and stress urinary incontinence
(“SUI”). In the seven MDLs, there are more than
58, 000 cases currently pending, approximately 28, 000 of
which are in the Ethicon MDL. In an effort to efficiently and
effectively manage this massive MDL, the court decided to
conduct pretrial discovery and motions practice on an
individualized basis so that once a case is trial-ready (that
is, after the court has ruled on all summary judgment
motions, among other things), it can then be promptly
transferred or remanded to the appropriate district for
trial. To this end, the court ordered the plaintiffs and
defendants to submit a joint list of 200 of the oldest cases
in the Ethicon MDL that name only Ethicon, Inc., Ethicon,
LLC, and/or Johnson & Johnson. These cases became part of
a “wave” of cases to be prepared for trial and,
if necessary, remanded. See Pretrial Order No. 193,
In re Ethicon, Inc. Pelvic Repair Sys. Prods. Liab.
Litig., No. 2:12-md-002327, Aug. 19, 2015, available
Plaintiffs' case was selected as a Wave 1 case.
McBrayer was implanted with the Prolift, a product
manufactured by Ethicon, on or around July 30, 2007 at
Carolinas Medical Center, Charlotte, North Carolina by Doctor
Gerald Bernard Taylor. Am. Short Form Compl. ¶ 8-12 [ECF
No. 17]. She is a resident of North Carolina. Id.
¶ 4. Ethicon moves for summary judgment on all of the
plaintiffs' substantive claims. Defs.' Mem. Supp. Mot.
Summ. J. 1 [ECF No. 94].
obtain summary judgment, the moving party must show that
there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that
the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). In considering a motion for
summary judgment, the court will not “weigh the
evidence and determine the truth of the matter.”
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249
(1986). Instead, the court will draw any permissible
inference from the underlying facts in the light most
favorable to the nonmoving party. Matsushita Elec. Indus.
Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587-88 (1986).
the court will view all underlying facts and inferences in
the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, the
nonmoving party nonetheless must offer some “concrete
evidence from which a reasonable juror could return a
verdict” in his or her favor. Anderson, 477
U.S. at 256. Summary judgment is appropriate when the
nonmoving party has the burden of proof on an essential
element of his or her case and does not make, after adequate
time for discovery, a showing sufficient to establish that
element. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317,
322-23 (1986). The nonmoving party must satisfy this burden
of proof by offering more than a mere “scintilla of
evidence” in support of his or her position.
Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252. Likewise, conclusory
allegations or unsupported speculation, without more, are
insufficient to preclude the granting of a summary judgment
motion. See Dash v. Mayweather, 731 F.3d 303, 311
(4th Cir. 2013); Stone v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 105
F.3d 188, 191 (4th Cir. 1997).
Choice of Law
28 U.S.C. § 1407, this court has authority to rule on
pretrial motions in MDL cases. The choice of law for these
pretrial motions depends on whether they concern federal or
When analyzing questions of federal law, the transferee court
should apply the law of the circuit in which it is located.
When considering questions of state law, however, the
transferee court must apply the state law that would have
applied to the individual cases had they not been transferred
re Temporomandibular Joint (TMJ) Implants Prods. Liab.
Litig., 97 F.3d 1050, 1055 (8th Cir. 1996) (internal
citations omitted). To determine the applicable state law for
a dispositive motion, the court generally refers to the
choice-of-law rules of the jurisdiction where the plaintiff
first filed her claim. See In re Air Disaster at
Ramstein Air Base, Ger., 81 F.3d 570, 576 (5th Cir.
1996) (“Where a transferee court presides over several
diversity actions consolidated under the multidistrict rules,
the choice of law rules of each jurisdiction in which the
transferred actions were originally filed must be
applied.”); In re Air Crash Disaster Near Chi.,
Ill., 644 F.2d 594, 610 (7th Cir. 1981); In re
Digitek Prods. Liab. Litig., MDL No. 2:08-md-01968, 2010
WL 2102330, at *7 (S.D. W.Va. May 25, 2010).
plaintiff files her claim directly into the MDL in the
Southern District of West Virginia, however, as the
plaintiffs did in this case, I consult the choice-of-law
rules of the state in which the implantation surgery took
place. See Sanchez v. BostonScientific
Corp., 2:12-cv-05762, 2014 WL 202787, at *4 (S.D. W.Va.
Jan. 17, 2014) (“For cases that originate elsewhere and
are directly filed into the MDL, I will follow the
better-reasoned authority that applies the choice-of-law
rules of the originating jurisdiction, which in our case is
the state in ...