Pamela Sutherland v. DCC Litigation Facility, Inc.
778 F.3d 545
| 6th Cir. | 2015Background
- Pamela Sutherland received silicone breast implants in North Carolina in 1988 and filed suit there in 1993.
- Dow Corning filed for bankruptcy in Michigan; Sutherland's claim was transferred to the Eastern District of Michigan as related to the bankruptcy.
- In 2012 the district court granted summary judgment, applying Michigan law and holding the claim untimely.
- The district court acknowledged that North Carolina, Virginia, and Michigan law could apply but relied on Michigan law rather than performing a full choice-of-law analysis.
- The court remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion, treating the issue as a choice-of-law question rather than a pure statute-of-limitations issue.
- The opinion ultimately holds that North Carolina law governs the timeliness analysis, with a genuine dispute as to when Sutherland discovered the link between her implants and illness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What law governs timeliness? | Sutherland argues NC law governs; venue transfer should not alter law. | DCC argues Michigan law should apply under § 157(b)(5) transfer. | NC law governs; remand to apply NC law. |
| Does a discovery rule apply to accrual under NC/MI law? | Sutherland's illness link triggered accrual when diagnosed or discovered. | Michigan has no discovery rule; accrual occurs at injury rather than diagnosis. | Genuine dispute on when discovery occurred; remand for fact-finding. |
| Does § 157(b)(5) transfer affect choice of law? | Transfer should not change substantive state-law rights. | Transfer could lead to Michigan law applying. | Transfer under § 157(b)(5) should not alter state-law choice; NC law applies. |
| Should the disease exception toll NC's limitations period here? | Disease exception tolls until causation is medically confirmed. | Disputed applicability of disease exception; not clearly applicable here. | Remand to determine applicability of disease exception under NC law. |
Key Cases Cited
- Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612 (Supreme Court 1964) (transfer of venue generally preserves choice-of-law rules)
- Ferens v. John Deere Co., 494 U.S. 516 (Supreme Court 1990) (transferee forum applies transferor law absent diversity)
- Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Mfg. Co., 313 U.S. 487 (Supreme Court 1941) (conflicts-of-laws rule chosen by state governs)
- In re Coudert Bros. LLP, 673 F.3d 180 (2d Cir. 2012) (apply source-state choice-of-law rules in bankruptcy-adversary context)
- Dow Corning Corp., 86 F.3d 482 (6th Cir. 1996) (bankruptcy-related global settlements and venue considerations)
- Wilder v. Amatex Corp., 314 N.C. 550 (North Carolina 1985) (disease exception to tolling for long-latency illnesses)