McFolling v. Boston Scientific Corporation

Justia Dockets & Filings Fourth Circuit West Virginia Southern District McFolling v. Boston Scientific Corporation

McFolling v. Boston Scientific Corporation

Plaintiff:	Marlene McFolling
Defendant:	Boston Scientific Corporation
Case Number:	2:2017cv02596
Filed:	April 28, 2017
Court:	US District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia
Office:	Charleston Office
County:	XX US, Outside State
Presiding Judge:	Joseph R. Goodwin
Nature of Suit:	Personal Injury- Product Liability
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 1332
Jury Demanded By:	Plaintiff

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed	Document Text
July 30, 2018	Filing 49 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER (Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment) The 26 MOTION by Marlene McFolling to Replace her Response in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED; and the 19 MOTION by Boston Scientifi c Corporation for Summary Judgment is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part; BSC's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED with respect to Count III (Strict Liability - Manufacturing Defect); Count V (Breach of Express Warranty); Count VI (Breach of Implied Warranty); and Count VIII (Discovery Rule, Tolling, and Fraudulent Concealment), and these claims are DISMISSED with prejudice; the Motion is DENIED with respect to Count I (Negligence), Count II (Strict Liability - Design Defect), Count IV (Strict Liability - Failure to Warn), and Count IX (Punitive Damages). Signed by Judge Joseph R. Goodwin on 7/27/2018. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (mek)

Date Filed

Document Text

July 30, 2018

Filing 49 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER (Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment) The 26 MOTION by Marlene McFolling to Replace her Response in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED; and the 19 MOTION by Boston Scientifi c Corporation for Summary Judgment is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part; BSC's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED with respect to Count III (Strict Liability - Manufacturing Defect); Count V (Breach of Express Warranty); Count VI (Breach of Implied Warranty); and Count VIII (Discovery Rule, Tolling, and Fraudulent Concealment), and these claims are DISMISSED with prejudice; the Motion is DENIED with respect to Count I (Negligence), Count II (Strict Liability - Design Defect), Count IV (Strict Liability - Failure to Warn), and Count IX (Punitive Damages). Signed by Judge Joseph R. Goodwin on 7/27/2018. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (mek)

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 West Virginia Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: McFolling v. Boston Scientific Corporation
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Marlene McFolling
Represented By:	Alexander G. Dwyer
Represented By:	Andrew F. Kirkendall
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	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Defendant: Boston Scientific Corporation
Represented By:	Michael Bonasso
Represented By:	Jon A. Strongman
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	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| 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?