UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
January 11, 2012
ROBERT ERICKSON, PLAINTIFF,
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION; GUIDANT CORPORATION; AND DOES 1 THROUGH 100, INCLUSIVE. , DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge: Hon. Andrew J. Guilford
Complaint filed: April 28, 2010 Date: December 12, 2011 Time: 10:00 a.m. Dept.: 10D
This matter came on for hearing before the Court on December 12, 2011, the Honorable Andrew J. Guilford, District Judge presiding, on a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by defendants Boston Scientific Corporation and Guidant LLC (formerly doing business as Guidant Corporation), (collectively "Defendants"). The evid and a Judg
ence prese a decision gment, ented havin having be ng been ful en duly ren lly conside ndered gra ered, the iss anting in pa sues havin art the Mot ng been dul tion for Su ly heard, ummary
IT IS OR 1. Pl 771 ("VIG 152 ("INSI ute of limit RDERED A laintiff's cl
JUDGED t ted to his V IGNIA Plu makers are AND ADJ laims relat ) and INSI 98") pacem ode of Civ. fornia law, a plaintiff " that VIGOR DR us DR, Mod time-barre 35.1. overy rule" someone h 3, 1110-12 R, Model 1 del 1298, s ed under C 232, serial serial numb California's l number ber s two-year 2037 1011 statu OR 1232") IGNIA 129 ations. Co Under Calif only until a Eli Lilly & . Proc. § 33 the "disco "suspects s al. 3d 1103
2. U ction, but o " rule delay has done so ys accrual o omething w of a cause wrong" to of ac him. 923 Jolly v. E (1988). Co., 44 Ca , 245 Cal. Rptr. 658, 751 P.2d 3. Pl mplaint, ma ruary 17, 2 laintiff's un ake it clear nequivoca that he su something akers at issu ued no late Complaint w o the VIGO l testimony spected or was allege ue. Thus, er than Feb was filed o OR 1232 an y the applic he VIGOR efendants.
y, coupled should ha edly wrong d with state ave suspect g with his V ements in h ted no later VIGOR 12 lated to the his r than 232 and ese two Com Febr INSI pace 005, that s 98 pacema issue accru laintiff's C s related to ms are time All claims re on the meri IGNIA 129 emakers at Plaintiff's bruary 17, on April 28 nd INSIGN cable two-y R 1232 and claims rel 2005. 8, 2010, mo NIA 1298 p year statute 4. Pl r his claims such claim ore than fiv pacemaker e of limitat A 1298 pac ve years rs accrued, tions. cemakers after and -barred by elated to th ts as to De 5. A ismissed o INSIGNIA be di Date ed: _Januar ry 11, 2012 2 ___
Andrew J. Guge United State Court Judg
_________ uilford s District C
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.