David v. Medtronic, Inc.
188 Cal. Rptr. 3d 103
Cal. Ct. App.2015Background
- Plaintiffs (37 patients) sued Medtronic and others for injuries from off‑label use of the medical product Infuse; one plaintiff is a California resident (David), others live in various U.S. states.
- Defendants include Medtronic entities (manufacturer) and Dr. Gary K. Michelson (Los Angeles resident), who was alleged to have patents related to the Infuse cage; defendants presented evidence Michelson was only peripherally involved.
- Medtronic moved to sever plaintiffs, to dismiss non‑California plaintiffs for forum non conveniens (consenting to jurisdiction in each plaintiff’s home state and tolling statutes), and to transfer David’s case to Sacramento.
- Trial court granted severance, granted forum non conveniens dismissal for all defendants (finding the plaintiffs’ home states were available alternative forums), and concluded Michelson was a nominal defendant and dismissed claims against him.
- Plaintiffs appealed severance and the forum non conveniens dismissal (they challenged only the threshold suitability finding that an alternative forum must have jurisdiction over all defendants).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether severance order is reviewable and/or proper | Severance order is appealable as it was necessary to establish alternative forums | Severance was proper; appealability challenged by Medtronic | Severance is reviewable; court affirmed severance (also upheld on discretionary §379.5 ground) |
| Whether an alternative forum must have jurisdiction over all defendants to be "suitable" | Plaintiffs: moving defendant must show alternative forum has jurisdiction over all defendants, including nominal ones | Medtronic: nominal defendants should not block dismissal; no need to show jurisdiction over a nominal defendant | Court reaffirmed rule that an alternative forum must have jurisdiction over all defendants as a threshold—but recognized limited flexibility only in exceptional multi‑defendant settings |
| Whether a nominal defendant can defeat forum non conveniens dismissal | Plaintiffs: presence of nominal defendant prevents dismissal unless jurisdiction exists over that defendant | Defendants: nominal defendant exception should apply so dismissal may proceed without jurisdiction over the nominal party | Court held a nominal defendant cannot block dismissal of the main action; however, California courts must sever (not dismiss) claims against the nominal defendant and permit them to proceed in California |
| Proper disposition when nominal defendant lacks jurisdiction in alternative forum | Plaintiffs: the whole case must remain in California | Defendants: entire case should be dismissed or transferred notwithstanding nominal defendant | Court affirmed dismissal as to Medtronic, reversed dismissal as to Michelson and directed trial court to sever claims against Michelson and allow them to proceed in California |
Key Cases Cited
- Stangvik v. Shiley, Inc., 54 Cal.3d 744 (threshold requirement that an alternative forum be suitable)
- American Cemwood Corp. v. American Home Assurance Co., 87 Cal.App.4th 431 (moving defendant must show alternative forum has jurisdiction over all defendants)
- Outboard Marine Corp. v. Superior Court, 59 Cal.App.3d 434 (older forum non conveniens balancing decision discussed but predated Stangvik)
- Hansen v. Owens‑Corning Fiberglas Corp., 51 Cal.App.4th 753 (limited flexibility in very large defendant cases)
- Wild v. Subscription Plus, Inc., 292 F.3d 526 (federal authority refusing to let nominal defendants block transfer)
- Wyndham Associates v. Bintliff, 398 F.2d 614 (plaintiff cannot avoid transfer by naming peripheral defendant)
- Watson v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 769 F.2d 354 (nominal defendants should not be dismissed merely because they are peripheral; severance preferred)
- Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc. v. Magellan Navigation, Inc., 512 F.Supp.2d 1169 (federal court discussion on transfer and jurisdiction over all defendants)