Jefferson v. Lead Industries Ass'n, Inc.

5 Citing briefs

  1. Roberts, et al v. Johnson & Johnson, Inc. et al

    MOTION for Summary Judgment

    Filed January 17, 2017

    Where the Plaintiffs claim damages arising from the use of an allegedly defective mesh in Mr. Roberts, Sr.’s surgery and the medical records for his surgery show that it was not Ethicon’s Prolene® Hernia System, but a different product altogether, Bard® mesh, which was used, Plaintiffs cannot meet their burden to establish an essential element of their LPLA claims against Johnson & Johnson and Ethicon, Inc. See Jefferson v. Lead Industries Ass’n, Inc., 930 F. Supp. 241, 246 (E.D. La. 1996). Therefore, Defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law, and Plaintiffs’ claims should be dismissed with prejudice.

  2. Breaux v. Globus Medical Inc

    MOTION to Dismiss For Failure to State a Claim

    Filed October 16, 2017

    .....................................................24 Horowitz v. Stryker Corp., 613 F.Supp.2d 271 (E.D.N.Y. 2009) .......................................................................................25 Hughes v. Boston Scientific Corp., 631 F. 3d 762 (5th Cir. 2011) ..................................................................................................14 Ilarraza v. Medtronic, Inc., 677 F.Supp. 2d 582 (E.D.N.Y. 2009) ......................................................................................24 Izadjoo v. Helix Energy Sols. Grp., Inc., 237 F. Supp. 3d 492, 502 .........................................................................................................13 Jacobsen v. Wyeth, LLC, No. 10-0823, 2012 WL 3575293 (E.D. La. Aug. 20, 2012) ....................................................18 James v. Diva Int’l, Inc., 803 F. Supp. 2d 945 (S.D. Ind. 2011) ......................................................................................24 Jefferson v. Lead Indus. Ass’n, Inc., 930 F.Supp. 241 (E.D.La.1996) aff’d, 106 F.3d 1245 (5th Cir. 1997) ....................................18 Johnson v. Sawyer, 47 F.3d 716 (5th Cir. 1995) .......................................................................................................9 Lemelle v. Stryker Orthopaedics, 698 F. Supp. 2d 668 (W.D. La. 2010) ........................................................................................8 Case 6:16-cv-00872-DDD-CBW Document 53 Filed 10/16/17 Page 8 of 43 PageID #: 737 v Lovelace v. Software Spectrum Inc., 78 F.3d 1015, 1017-18 (5th Cir. 1996) ......................................................................................9 Malbroux v. Jancuska, 2011 WL 3816104 (W.D. La. Aug. 29, 2011) ...................................................................12, 14 McBride v. Medtronic, Inc., 2013 WL 3491085 (W.D. La. July 10, 2013) ..........................................................2, 12, 25, 26 McQuiston v. Boston Scientific Corp., 2009 WL 4016120 (W.D. La. No

  3. Mendy Brothers, Llc et al v. Bank of New York Mellon et al

    MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim

    Filed March 24, 2017

    Servs., LLC. v. First Tennessee Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 942 F. Supp. 2d 611, 618 (E.D. La. 2013); Jefferson v. Lead Indus. Ass’n, Inc., 930 F. Supp. 241, 248 (E.D. La. 1996). 43 Able Sec., 569 F. Supp. 2d at 636.

  4. Modicue v. Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals L P et al

    MOTION to Dismiss For Failure to State a Claim Plaintiffs Complaint

    Filed January 23, 2017

    ..9 Jefferson v. Lead Indus. Ass'n, Inc., 930 F. Supp. 241………………………………

  5. Pinero v. Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc. et al

    REPLY to Response to Motion

    Filed June 3, 2009

    This failure to plead specific reliance on alleged misrepresentations is fatal to a fraud claim under Louisiana law. See, e.g., Jefferson v. Lead Industries Association, Inc., 930 F. Supp. 241, 248 (E.D. La. 1996) (dismissing a claim for 10 As noted in our opening memorandum, rather than identify specific representations and then explain how they were false, Plaintiff can point only to an alleged privacy policy representing that “policies and procedures” would be maintained to “ restrict access” to Plaintiff’s information. See Third Amended Complaint, Exhibit O. Plaintiff then recites a litany of ways in which she contends the privacy safeguards of the “Defendants” was inadequate.