Vigil v. Coloplast Corp.

S.D.W. Va9/12/2019
View on CourtListener

AI Case Brief

Generate an AI-powered case brief with:

đź“‹Key Facts
⚖️Legal Issues
📚Court Holding
đź’ˇReasoning
🎯Significance

Estimated cost: $0.10–$0.50 per brief, depending on opinion length and retries

Full Opinion

 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION BELINDA VIGIL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:15-cv-13643 COLOPLAST CORP., Defendant. 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. ENTER: September 12, 2019 ee STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case Information

Court
S.D.W. Va
Decision Date
September 12, 2019
Status
Precedential
Vigil v. Coloplast Corp. | Tortwell