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 the Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No.
49] filed by defendants Ethicon, Inc. and Johnson &
Johnson (collectively, “Ethicon”). As set forth
below, Ethicon’s Motion is GRANTED in
part and DENIED in part.
action involves Texas co-plaintiffs, one of whom was
implanted with a mesh product manufactured by Ethicon, the
Gynecare Prosima (“Prosima”) on April 28, 2010.
Am. Short Form Compl. [ECF No. 14] ¶¶ 1–12.
The 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
60,000 cases currently pending, nearly 28,000 of which are in
the Ethicon MDL, MDL 2327.
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. 206, In re Ethicon, Inc. Pelvic Repair Sys.
Prods. Liab. Litig., No. 2:12-md-002327, Nov. 20, 2015,
The plaintiffs’ case was selected as an “Ethicon
Wave 2 case.”
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
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
Symanks originally filed their claim the Southern District of
Texas. See Compl. [ECF No. 1]. Thus, the
choice-of-law principles of Texas guide the court’s
choice-of-law analysis. See Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Elect.
Mfg. Co., 313 U.S. 487, 496 (1941).
parties agree, as does the court, that these principles
compel application of Texas substantive law to the
plaintiffs’ claims. In tort actions, Texas adheres to
the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws (Am. Law Inst.
1971). Gutierrez v. Collins, 583 S.W.2d 312, 318
(Tex. 1979). Under section 145 of the Restatement, the court
must apply the law of the state with the most
“significant relationship to the occurrence and the
parties.” Here, the plaintiffs reside in Texas, and Ms.
Symanek’s implantation surgery occurred in Texas. Am.
Short Form Compl. ¶ 11. Texas has a strong interest in
resolving tort actions brought by its citizens for injuries
arising from conduct alleged to have occurred within its
territorial jurisdiction. Thus, I will apply Texas
substantive law to this case.
argues it is entitled to summary judgment because the
plaintiffs’ claims are ...