GRIFFIN et al v. MEDTRONIC INC. et al

Plaintiff: WILLIAM L. GRIFFIN, SR and REGINALD JACKSON, JR
Defendant: MEDTRONIC INC. and MEDTRONIC MINIMED, INC.
Case Number: 1:2017cv03292
Filed: September 15, 2017
Court: Indiana Southern District Court
Office: Indianapolis Office
Referring Judge: Mark J. Dinsmore
Presiding Judge: Jane Magnus-Stinson
Nature of Suit: Personal Inj. Prod. Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed#Document Text
February 8, 2018 35 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER - The co-administrators of Arleen Griffin's estate (the "Estate") allege that Ms. Griffin's death on March 13, 2013 was caused by a malfunctioning insulin pump. Four years later, the Estate brought suit against the compani es that manufactured the insulin pump, Medtronic, Inc. and Medtronic Minimed, Inc., (collectively, "Defendants"). [Filing No. 1 .] On December 8, 2017, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss, [Filing No. 19 ], along with a Declaration f rom counsel and four exhibits, [Filing No. 21 ]. A month later, the Estate filed a Motion to Strike Defendants' Declaration and exhibits, or otherwise treat Defendants' Motion to Dismiss as a Motion for Summary Judgment. [Filing No. [26 ].] The Estate's Motion to Strike is now fully briefed and is ripe for the Court's consideration. For the foregoing reasons, the Estate's Motion to Strike, 26 , is GRANTED and Defendants' Declaration and supporting exhibits, [ Filing No. 21 ], are stricken. However, nothing in this Order shall preclude the Court from taking judicial notice of any documents in the future, consistent with the law of this Circuit. The Estate is GRANTED fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order in which to respond to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. In the alternative, the Estate is reminded that, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(B), a plaintiff may amend its complaint once as a matter of course in response to a motion to dismiss. Should the Estate opt to amend its Complaint, it is GRANTED fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order in which to do so. (SEE ORDER). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 2/8/2018. (APD)

Access additional case information on PACER

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 Indiana Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: GRIFFIN et al v. MEDTRONIC INC. et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: WILLIAM L. GRIFFIN, SR
Represented By: Robert Thomas Dassow
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: REGINALD JACKSON, JR
Represented By: Robert Thomas Dassow
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: MEDTRONIC INC.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: MEDTRONIC MINIMED, INC.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

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.


Why Is My Information Online?