Richardson et al v. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al
| Brian Richardson and Susan Richardson |
| Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc., Conceptus, Inc., Essure, Essure Promise and John Doe Corporations I-X |
| 4:2015cv00443 |
| September 23, 2015 |
| US District Court for the District of Idaho |
| Pocatello - Eastern Office |
| Bingham - Eastern |
| Ronald E. Bush |
| Personal Injury- Product Liability |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 |
| Both |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
26
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - IT IS ORDERED: 1. Plaintiffs Motion to Amend Amended Complaint (Dkt. 14 ) is GRANTED, and the Court has addressed the motion for judgment on the pleadings as it applies to the Second Amended Complaint. 2. Defendants M otion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Dkt. 13 ) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. All claims except those relating to Plaintiffs failure to warn allegations are dismissed. Plaintiffs are granted leave to amend the claims in the Second Amended Co mplaint regarding the failure to train the implanting physician in the use of the hysteroscopic equipment. Any amended complaint must be filed on or before 9/13/2016 (Amended Complaint due by 9/13/2016). Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (cjs)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Idaho District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
