Skip to content.
About GPO   |   Newsroom/Media   |   Congressional Relations   |   Inspector General   |   Careers   |   Contact   |   askGPO   |   Help  
 

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)
 

17-3292 - GRIFFIN et al v. MEDTRONIC INC. et al


Download Files

Metadata

Document in Context
17-3292 - GRIFFIN et al v. MEDTRONIC INC. et al
February 8, 2018
PDF | More
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 companies 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 from 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)