Meuchal v. Davol, Inc.
9:19-cv-00116
D. Mont.Aug 19, 2019Background
- Plaintiff Donald J. Meuchal sued C.R. Bard, Davol, Providence Health & Services–Montana, and John Does in Montana state court alleging injuries from a polypropylene hernia mesh implanted in 2006 and surgically resected in 2016.
- Meuchal asserts strict products liability, negligence, deceit, and Montana Consumer Protection Act claims; the products-liability theory against Providence is the only claim asserted against that defendant.
- C.R. Bard removed to federal court (and notified the MDL Panel) and moved to stay proceedings pending likely transfer to the Bard/Davol hernia-mesh MDL in Ohio.
- Meuchal moved to remand, arguing complete diversity is lacking because Providence, a Montana defendant, is properly joined. C.R. Bard argued Providence was fraudulently joined and alternatively that Meuchal failed to present any claim to the Montana Medical Legal Panel (MMLP).
- The District Court applied the three-step Meyers framework, declined to stay, found the dispositive jurisdictional question depended on unsettled Montana law, concluded C.R. Bard did not meet the heavy burden to show fraudulent joinder, vacated Providence’s default as void, and remanded the case to state court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether federal diversity jurisdiction exists | Meuchal: No; Providence (Montana) is a proper defendant, defeating diversity | C.R. Bard: Yes; Providence was fraudulently joined and cannot be liable under Montana products-liability law | Remand: Diversity lacking; fraudulent joinder not shown, remand required |
| Whether Providence can be liable under Montana’s products-liability statute (§ 27‑1‑719 / Restatement §402A) | Meuchal: Providence qualifies as a "seller" and can be sued in strict products liability | C.R. Bard: Hospitals/providers are not sellers under Montana law; claim fails as a matter of law | Court: Montana law unsettled; cannot say claim is obviously deficient; joinder may be proper |
| Whether the Montana Medical Legal Panel (MMLP) prerequisite bars Meuchal’s claim | Meuchal: Claim is products liability, not medical malpractice, so MMLP inapplicable | C.R. Bard: Meuchal failed to present claim to MMLP, so claim against Providence is barred | Court: Montana has not settled that non‑malpractice products claims must go to MMLP; MMLP’s fact‑finding is not well suited to resolve the legal question |
| Whether proceedings should be stayed pending MDL transfer | Meuchal: Court should resolve remand before staying | C.R. Bard: Stay is appropriate pending MDL Panel transfer | Court: Denied stay because remand turns on unsettled state law better decided here first |
Key Cases Cited
- Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248 (stay power inherent in courts)
- Meyers v. Bayer AG, 143 F. Supp. 2d 1044 (E.D. Wis. 2001) (three‑step test for resolving remand before MDL transfer)
- Rivers v. Walt Disney Co., 980 F. Supp. 1358 (C.D. Cal. 1997) (factors for staying cases pending MDL decision)
- McCabe v. Gen. Foods Corp., 811 F.2d 1336 (9th Cir. 1987) (fraudulent‑joinder standard: obvious failure to state claim under settled state law)
- Grancare, LLC v. Thrower ex rel. Mills, 889 F.3d 543 (9th Cir. 2018) (defendant’s heavy burden to prove fraudulent joinder)
- Hunter v. Philip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039 (9th Cir. 2009) (possibility that state would sustain claim defeats fraudulent‑joinder finding)