Alvarez v. C. R. Bard, Inc., 2:13-cv-26891

Plaintiff Iris Alvarez filed directly into the MDL for transvaginal mesh cases (C.R. Bard, MDL No. 2187); implantation occurred in Florida, so Florida choice-of-law rules apply.
The court manages the MDL by preparing selected "wave" cases for trial; Alvarez was a Wave 1 plaintiff.
Alvarez asserted multiple tort claims against Bard, including negligence (failure to warn and design defect, and allegations concerning inspection/marketing/labeling/packaging/selling), manufacturing defect, and breach of warranties; she also sought punitive damages.
Bard moved for partial summary judgment seeking dismissal of manufacturing defect, express and implied warranty claims, certain negligence theories (inspection/packaging/marketing/selling), and punitive damages.
The court applied federal summary judgment standards and Florida choice-of-law principles (Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws §145) to determine applicable law and the sufficiency of evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether claims for manufacturing defect and breach of express and implied warranties survive	Alvarez pursued these product-liability and warranty claims arising from alleged harms caused by the mesh	Bard conceded or argued no genuine factual dispute supports some claims	Court GRANTED summary judgment for Bard as to manufacturing defect and breach of express and implied warranties (claims dismissed)
Whether negligence theories based on inspection, packaging, marketing, labeling, and selling are viable	Alvarez contended these acts form part of her general negligence theory that Bard failed to adequately test/study safety	Bard argued lack of evidence to support these distinct negligence theories	Court GRANTED summary judgment to Bard on negligent inspection/packaging/marketing/selling (no genuine dispute)
Whether other negligence claims (failure to warn, design defect) have sufficient evidence to proceed	Alvarez alleged negligent failure to warn and defective design causing injury	Bard sought summary judgment as to remaining negligence theories	Court DENIED summary judgment on remaining negligence claims — genuine disputes of material fact exist
Whether punitive damages are appropriate at summary judgment stage	Alvarez sought punitive damages based on Bard’s alleged conduct	Bard moved to preclude punitive damages as a matter of law	Court DENIED Bard’s motion — factual issues preclude summary determination on punitive damages

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (Federal summary judgment standards and need to view evidence in light most favorable to nonmoving party)
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (inferences drawn against nonmoving party at summary judgment)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (moving party may obtain summary judgment where nonmoving party bears essential burden and fails to produce evidence)
Dash v. Mayweather, 731 F.3d 303 (4th Cir.) (conclusory allegations and speculation insufficient to defeat summary judgment)
Stone v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 105 F.3d 188 (4th Cir.) (same)
In re Temporomandibular Joint (TMJ) Implants Prods. Liab. Litig., 97 F.3d 1050 (8th Cir.) (transferee court choice-of-law guidance in MDL context)
In re Air Disaster at Ramstein Air Base, Ger., 81 F.3d 570 (5th Cir.) (apply origin jurisdiction choice-of-law rules for transferred actions)
In re Air Crash Disaster Near Chi., Ill., 644 F.2d 594 (7th Cir.) (similar choice-of-law guidance for MDL transferee court)
Bishop v. Fla. Specialty Paint Co., 389 So. 2d 999 (Fla.) (Florida follows Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws for torts)
Lewis v. City of St. Petersburg, 260 F.3d 1260 (11th Cir.) (elements of negligence under Florida law)