Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Vigil v. Coloplast Corp., 2:15-cv-13643. (2019)

Court: District Court, S.D. West Virginia Number: infdco20190913h21 Visitors: 10
Filed: Sep. 12, 2019
Latest Update: Sep. 12, 2019
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER JOSEPH R. GOODWIN , District Judge . Pending is Defendant Coloplast Corp.'s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, filed May 13, 2019. [ECF No. 41]. In the motion, Coloplast Corp. ("Coloplast") moves for partial summary judgment as to the following Counts: I, II, III, IV, VI, VII, VIII, IX, XI, XIII, XIV and XVII. Plaintiffs respond in part, by stating that they will not proceed on and ask the court to deny Coloplast's Motion as to the following Counts: Count I (n
More

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Pending is Defendant Coloplast Corp.'s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, filed May 13, 2019. [ECF No. 41]. In the motion, Coloplast Corp. ("Coloplast") moves for partial summary judgment as to the following Counts: I, II, III, IV, VI, VII, VIII, IX, XI, XIII, XIV and XVII. Plaintiffs respond in part, by stating that they will not proceed on and ask the court to deny Coloplast's Motion as to the following Counts: Count I (negligence in manufacturing only), II (strict liability — design defect), III (strict liability — manufacturing defect), VI (breach of express warranty), VII (breach of implied warranty), VIII (fraudulent concealment), IX (constrictive fraud), XI (negligent misrepresentation), XIII, (violation of consumer protection laws), and XIV (gross negligence). [ECF No. 50]. Coloplast has replied [ECF No. 53].

Plaintiffs might well have moved to dismiss these claims if they do not intend to pursue them. In any event, summary judgment is appropriate on all claims where "there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56; Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986). Because plaintiffs have acknowledged they do not intend to pursue the claims cited above, the court ORDERS that Coloplast's Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 41] is GRANTED as to Counts I (negligence in manufacturing only), II (strict liability — design defect), III (strict liability — manufacturing defect), VI (breach of express warranty), VII (breach of implied warranty), VIII (fraudulent concealment), IX (constrictive fraud), XI (negligent misrepresentation), XIII, (violation of consumer protection laws), and XIV (gross negligence), and is otherwise DENIED.

The court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer