ILNews

COA: Guidant suit to stay in Indiana

Michael W. Hoskins
January 1, 2007
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The state's second-highest appeals court is allowing a class-action lawsuit involving Guidant Corp. defibrillators to proceed in Marion County, though the ruling won't affect similar federal or state suits.

A three-judge Indiana Court of Appeals panel ruled Thursday in Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. Ryan Terry and Linda Mason, No. 49A04-0704-CV-240, that Terry and Mason could continue a class-action product-liability lawsuit against Guidant over now-recalled defibrillators or pacemakers.

Minnesota-based Cardiac Pacemakers Inc., a subsidiary of Guidant, manufactured the devices and wanted to get involved in the suit so that it could be moved to a federal court in its home state, where many similar cases have been moved for pre-trial proceedings.

Guidant announced a collective settlement of the federal court cases earlier this year; those are on hold while individual plaintiffs determine whether to accept that settlement.

This Indiana case is not affected by the federal halt, but Cardiac Pacemakers argued that the plaintiffs, Linda Mason and Ryan Terry, were trying to sidestep the federal litigation by keeping their case in state court.

Attorneys representing Mason and Terry seek to recover damages on behalf of a class of "several thousand" Hoosiers who received the defective defibrillators.

Marion Superior Judge Robyn Moberly denied Cardiac Pacemakers from intervening and ordered the case to remain in Indiana so no undue burden would be placed on the individuals suing and delays wouldn't be added by transferring the case to a federal court.

"The desire to resolve disputes between citizens of Indiana in our local courts outweighs the benefit of federal jurisdiction in this lawsuit as this time," Judge Moberly wrote in her Jan. 2 order. "Hoosiers rightfully expect that when they have a dispute with another Hoosier, that they will not have to travel to Minnesota, or any other state, to have their day in court."

The decision is Not for Publication. Attorneys have 30 days from the decision to decide whether they want to ask for the ruling to be published.Indianapolis-based Guidant was acquired for $27 billion in May 2006 by Boston Scientific Corp., which is headquartered in Natick, Mass.
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT