Sanders v. Johnson & Johnson
2:12-cv-01562
S.D.W. VaDec 12, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Melissa Sanders (Arkansas resident) received an Ethicon Gynecare TVT‑S implant on August 8, 2008; suit filed directly into the Ethicon MDL in S.D. West Virginia.
- Case was selected as part of the Ethicon “Wave 2” group for individualized pretrial discovery and dispositive motion practice in MDL No. 2327.
- Defendants are Ethicon, Inc. and Johnson & Johnson; defendants moved for summary judgment on statute‑of‑limitations grounds and for broader summary relief on multiple claims.
- Parties agree Arkansas choice‑of‑law principles govern substantive issues because the injury and plaintiff’s residence are in Arkansas.
- Plaintiffs conceded a number of claims (manufacturing defect, strict liability defective product, various fraud, negligent misrepresentation, emotional distress, warranty, and consumer protection counts); court granted summary judgment for Ethicon as to those counts.
- For the remaining claims, the court found genuine disputes of material fact (including timeliness under Arkansas statute of limitations) and denied summary judgment on those issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Arkansas statute of limitations bars the claims | Sanders contends issues of fact (e.g., discovery of injury/cause) preclude time‑bar dismissal | Ethicon argues claims are time‑barred and should be dismissed | Denied — genuine disputes of material fact remain as to timeliness |
| Whether summary judgment is appropriate on all claims | Sanders says evidence supports remaining claims and precludes summary judgment | Ethicon seeks dismissal of multiple counts for lack of evidence and as conceded | Granted in part and denied in part — numerous counts conceded and dismissed; other claims survive summary judgment |
| Choice of law to apply to substantive issues | Sanders (implicitly) accepts Arkansas law applies because implantation occurred in Arkansas | Ethicon concurs Arkansas choice‑of‑law governs | Court applies Arkansas substantive law (lex loci delicti and choice‑influencing factors) |
| Scope of dispositive relief as to specific counts | Sanders argues some counts have triable issues | Ethicon asks dismissal of Counts II, IV, VI–XIII among others | Court GRANTS summary judgment on Counts II, IV, VI–XIII (as listed); DENIES as to other claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (summary judgment and inferences)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (party with burden must show genuine issue)
- Dash v. Mayweather, 731 F.3d 303 (4th Cir. 2013) (conclusory allegations insufficient to defeat summary judgment)
- Stone v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 105 F.3d 188 (4th Cir. 1997) (same)
- In re Temporomandibular Joint (TMJ) Implants Prods. Liab. Litig., 97 F.3d 1050 (choice‑of‑law guidance for MDL transferee court)
- In re Air Disaster at Ramstein Air Base, Ger., 81 F.3d 570 (choice‑of‑law in MDL context)
- In re Air Crash Disaster Near Chi., Ill., 644 F.2d 594 (choice‑of‑law analysis for consolidated actions)
- Ganey v. Kawasaki Motors Corp., 234 S.W.3d 838 (Ark. 2006) (Arkansas choice‑of‑law principles: lex loci delicti and five factors)