Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Luna v. Atrium Medical Corp.

United States District Court, D. New Hampshire

August 26, 2019

Martha Luna
Atrium Medical Corporation, Maquet Cardiovascular U.S. Sales, LLC, and Getinge AB In re Atrium Medical Corp. C-QUR Mesh Products Liability Litigation MDL No. 2753


          Landya B. McCafferty United States District Judge.

         Martha Luna brings suit against Atrium Medical Corporation (“Atrium”), a medical device company that manufactured and sold C-QUR mesh, and two related companies, Maquet Cardiovascular U.S. Sales, LLC (“Maquet”) and Getinge AB (“Getinge”), alleging product liability claims, breach of warranties claims, and violation of consumer protection laws. Luna's suit is part of a multi-district litigation (“MDL”) proceeding involving claims that C-QUR mesh was, among other things, defective and unreasonably dangerous and caused injury when surgically implanted for hernia repair. This case was selected in the MDL proceeding for the Initial Discovery Pool, making it a bellwether case. Defendants Atrium and Maquet move to dismiss on a variety of grounds.[1] Luna objects.


         Under Rule 12(b)(6), the court must accept the factual allegations in the complaint as true, construe reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor, and “determine whether the factual allegations in the plaintiff's complaint set forth a plausible claim upon which relief may be granted.” Foley v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 772 F.3d 63, 71 (1st Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted). A claim is facially plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).


         On August 9, 2013, Luna, a California resident, underwent a repair procedure for an umbilical hernia in a California hospital. A C-QUR Mesh V-Patch was used for the repair. Within two weeks, Luna experienced significant symptoms including drainage from the wound and fever. She was treated with antibiotics, and by September 23, 2013, her wound had healed. In October 2015, however, Luna was admitted to the hospital because of fever and abdominal pain. A CT scan identified an abdominal abscess. She then had surgery to drain the abscess and remove the mesh. She recovered from that procedure.

         Atrium, which designed, marketed, and sold the C-QUR mesh that was implanted into Luna, is located in New Hampshire. Maquet is located in New Jersey, and Getinge is a Swedish corporation. Luna alleges that Maquet and Getinge are responsible for Atrium's actions and exercised control over Atrium with respect to oversight and compliance with applicable safety standards.

         Luna alleges, among other things, that defendants designed, manufactured, marketed, and sold C-QUR mesh to be used by surgeons for hernia repair. C-QUR mesh was intended to be permanently implanted for those repairs, and defendants represented that C-QUR mesh was safe and effective for that purpose. Luna further alleges that C-QUR mesh was not safe or effective for its intended purpose, that defendants failed to adequately research and test it to determine the risks and benefits of the mesh, and that they failed to warn of risks although they had been notified that the mesh was causing widespread catastrophic complications. Luna brings claims for negligence (Count I), strict liability - design defect (Count II), strict liability - manufacturing defect (Count III), strict liability - failure to warn (Count IV), breach of express warranty (Count V), breach of implied warranties of merchantability and fitness of purpose (Count VI), and violation of consumer protection laws (Count VII). She seeks compensatory and enhanced damages.


         Defendants Atrium and Maquet contend that California law governs the liability portion of Luna's claims and that her claims fail under the applicable law. Luna objects, arguing that it is too early for the court to engage in a choice-of-law analysis, but that if it did employ that analysis, New Hampshire law should apply to all of her claims.

         I. Choice of Law

         Defendants contend that California has an interest in the case because Luna is a resident of the state and her alleged injury occurred there. They further contend that a choice-of-law analysis is necessary because California's product liability law conflicts with New Hampshire's product liability law and that, under New Hampshire's choice-of-law principles, California law governs. Luna argues that a choice-of-law analysis is premature because additional factual development is necessary and that, other than as to her strict liability - design defect claim, defendants have not sufficiently identified an actual conflict. She further contends that if the court engages in a choice-of-law analysis, New Hampshire law governs.

         A. Timing of Choice-of Law

         Luna includes a section in her objection that is titled “Ripeness of Choice of Law Determination.” Doc. no. 182 at 3. She notes that “[t]here is no rule allowing nor prohibiting choice of law determinations at the motion to dismiss stage.” Id. Luna goes on to discuss cases that address whether the record was sufficiently developed to allow a choice-of-law determination at an early stage of the litigation. She asserts that ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.