Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Laux v. Mentor Worldwide LLC

United States District Court, C.D. California

November 8, 2017

ANITA LAUX Plaintiff,
v.
MENTOR WORLDWIDE, LLC; and DOES 1-10, inclusive Defendants.

          ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [59]

          OTIS D. WRIGHT, II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         I. INTRODUCTION

         Plaintiff Anita Laux initiated this action against Defendant Mentor Worldwide, LLC, on December 29, 2015, in Ventura County Superior Court. (Compl., ECF No. 1-2.) On February 12, 2016, Defendant removed this case to United States District Court for the Central District of California. (ECF No. 1.) Before the Court now is Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. (Mot., ECF No. 59.) Having considered the parties' submissions, and for the reasons that follow, the Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion.[1]

         II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

         Defendant is a manufacturer of saline filled inflatable breast implants (“Mentor Saline Breast Implants” or “breast implants”). (Compl. ¶ 12.) On December 30, 2005, Plaintiff underwent surgery and Plaintiff's doctor implanted Defendant's Mentor Saline Breast Implants. (Id.) After the surgery, Plaintiff allegedly began to suffer from, among other things, pain throughout her body, respiratory congestion, severe fatigue, and numbness. (Id. ¶ 16.)

         In May 2014, Plaintiff's doctors performed several tests that revealed the presence of debris and bio-toxins from mold inside of Plaintiff's breast implants. (See id. ¶¶ 18-19.) On May 23, 2014, Dr. Susan Kolb removed Plaintiff's breast implants, and concluded that they were leaking bilaterally. (Id. ¶ 20.) In June 2015, Dr. Pierre Blais examined the explanted breast implants. (Id. ¶ 23.) In his “Failure Analysis Report, ” Dr. Blais concluded that the Mentor Saline Breast Implants had defective valves, causing them to leak bilaterally. (See Id. ¶¶ 23-30.) Dr. Blais also opined that the leaking breast implants caused Plaintiff to suffer from a variety of injuries, including: debilitating bio-toxin disease, auto-immune disorders, respiratory disease, and fibromyalgia. (Id. ¶ 30.)

         Subsequently, Plaintiff brought this suit alleging that she has suffered injuries as a result of Defendant's manufacturing defects, negligence, and breach of warranty. (See generally Compl.) Initially, Plaintiff was represented by counsel, but that counsel later moved to withdraw-which this Court granted. (ECF Nos. 44, 51.) Therefore, Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. (See ECF No. 55.) On August 4, 2017, Defendant moved to exclude the opinions of Plaintiff's proffered experts and filed the instant Motion for Summary Judgment on all of Plaintiff's claims.

         III. LEGAL STANDARD

         Summary judgment is appropriate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 if the moving party demonstrates the absence of a genuine issue of material fact and entitlement to a judgment as a matter of law. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). A fact is material when, under the governing law, the resolution of that fact might affect the outcome of the case. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A dispute is genuine if “the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Id. at 249.

         A party seeking summary judgment bears the initial burden to establish the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323. To satisfy this burden, the moving party may simply point to portions of pleadings, admissions, answers to interrogatories and depositions which, along with affidavits, show the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. See Id. If the moving party satisfies its burden, the nonmoving party must produce specific evidence to show that a genuine dispute exists. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e). The Court draws all inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. See T.W. Elec. Serv., Inc. v. Pac. Elec. Contractors Ass'n, 809 F.2d 626, 630-31 (9th Cir. 1987). However, the nonmoving party “must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986) (footnote omitted). “If the evidence is merely colorable, or is not significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted.” Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 249-50 (citations omitted).

         IV. DISCUSSION

         Defendant moves for summary judgment on Plaintiff's state-law claims for: (1) manufacturing defect, (2) negligence, and (3) breach of warranty. (Mot. 10.)

         A. Federal Preemption Under the Medical Device Amendments of 1976 and Riegel v. Medtronics, Inc.

         Defendant first contends that the Mentor Saline Breast Implant at issue is a Class III device approved by the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) through the premarket approval process (“PMA process”), and thus, Plaintiff's manufacturing defect and negligence claims are expressly preempted by the Medical Device Amendments (“MDA”), 21 U.S.C. §§ 360 et seq. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.