Eghnayem v. Boston Scientific Corporation
2:13-cv-07965
| S.D.W. Va | Oct 21, 2014Background
- Plaintiffs (including Amal Eghnayem) are Florida residents implanted with Boston Scientific’s Pinnacle pelvic mesh in Florida and allege injuries from that device.
- Plaintiffs assert negligence, strict liability (design, manufacturing, failure to warn), breach of warranties, fraudulent concealment, and punitive damages.
- BSC moved for partial summary judgment seeking dismissal of plaintiffs’ punitive damages claims; Eghnayem separately moved for leave to amend to add a Massachusetts-law punitive claim.
- The court applied Florida choice-of-law rules because these cases originated in Florida and were directly filed into the MDL.
- The central choice-of-law question was whether Massachusetts law (which BSC urged) or Florida law governs punitive damages for injuries occurring in Florida.
- The court denied BSC’s motion for partial summary judgment and denied Eghnayem’s motion to amend as moot after concluding Florida punitive damages law applies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which state’s punitive damages law applies? | Florida law applies because injuries and parties’ relationship center in Florida. | Massachusetts law should apply because BSC’s relevant management and conduct occurred in Massachusetts. | Florida substantive punitive damages law applies. |
| Does Massachusetts have a more significant relationship under Restatement §145/§6? | No — Florida’s contacts (place of injury, residence, distribution) and interests are stronger. | Yes — BSC argued ties to Massachusetts (principal place of business, management). | Massachusetts does not have a more significant relationship; Florida prevails. |
| Has BSC met its initial burden on summary judgment to show no genuine issue of material fact on punitive damages? | Plaintiffs contend BSC failed to challenge the factual basis for punitive damages. | BSC focused on choice-of-law (Massachusetts) and argued punitive damages unavailable under that law. | BSC failed to show absence of a genuine factual dispute; summary judgment denied. |
| Should Eghnayem be allowed to amend to add Massachusetts-law punitive damages? | Amendment unnecessary if Florida law applies. | N/A — amendment would have been relevant only if Massachusetts law applied. | Denied as moot because Florida law applies. |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard and weighing evidence)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (drawing inferences for summary judgment)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (moving party’s initial summary judgment burden)
- Bishop v. Florida Specialty Paint Co., 389 So.2d 999 (Fla. 1980) (adoption of Restatement significant-relationship test for torts)
- Owens–Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Ballard, 749 So.2d 483 (Florida punitive damages purpose: punishment and deterrence)
- W.R. Grace & Co.–Conn. v. Waters, 638 So.2d 502 (punitive damages policies)
- St. Regis Paper Co. v. Watson, 428 So.2d 243 (punitive damages policies)