From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Steele v. Depuy Orthopaedics, Inc.

United States District Court, D. New Jersey
Nov 20, 2003
Civil No. 02-3783 (RBK), Docket Entry Nos. 35, 44 (D.N.J. Nov. 20, 2003)

Summary

denying defendant's motion for summary judgment on preemption grounds as to plaintiff's breach of express warranty claims

Summary of this case from In re St. Jude Medical, Silzone Heart Valves Products Liab.

Opinion

Civil No. 02-3783 (RBK), Docket Entry Nos. 35, 44

November 20, 2003


ORDER


THIS MATTER having come before the Court upon motion by George E. McDavid, Esquire, of Reed Smith Shaw McClay, LLP, attorney for Defendant DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., for an Order granting Defendant's motion for summary judgment on the ground that Plaintiffs' state-law claims of negligence, strict liability, breach of express and implied warranty, and fraudulent concealment are preempted by Section 360k(a) of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act; and the Court having considered the moving papers; and the Plaintiffs' opposition thereto; and for the reasons expressed in the opinion attached hereto; and

IT IS this 20th day of November, 2003 hereby ORDERED that Defendant's motion for summary judgment [docket entry No. 35-1] is (1) GRANTED with respect to Plaintiffs' state-law claims of negligent manufacturing, design, warning and labeling, strict product liability, and breach of implied warranty of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose, and (2) DENIED with respect to Plaintiffs' state-law claims of breach of express warranty and fraudulent concealment; and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's motion to strike, or in the alternative disregard, Dr. Charles H. Kyper's affidavits [docket entry No. 44-1] is GRANTED.


Summaries of

Steele v. Depuy Orthopaedics, Inc.

United States District Court, D. New Jersey
Nov 20, 2003
Civil No. 02-3783 (RBK), Docket Entry Nos. 35, 44 (D.N.J. Nov. 20, 2003)

denying defendant's motion for summary judgment on preemption grounds as to plaintiff's breach of express warranty claims

Summary of this case from In re St. Jude Medical, Silzone Heart Valves Products Liab.

acknowledging plaintiffs' argument that the approval at issue was more akin to the abbreviated 510k, and apparently rejecting the argument, but not discussing the issue

Summary of this case from In re St. Jude Medical, Silzone Heart Valves Products Liab.
Case details for

Steele v. Depuy Orthopaedics, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:WILLIAM C. STEELE, et al., Plaintiffs, V. DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS, INC.…

Court:United States District Court, D. New Jersey

Date published: Nov 20, 2003

Citations

Civil No. 02-3783 (RBK), Docket Entry Nos. 35, 44 (D.N.J. Nov. 20, 2003)

Citing Cases

In re St. Jude Medical, Silzone Heart Valves Products Liab.

See Mitchell, 126 F.3d at 915 ("As we noted in our earlier opinion, [express] warranties arise from the…