Missouri Federal Court Denies Motions To Dismiss In Filshie Clip Migration Case

Federal Court Denies Motions To Dismiss: The United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri Southern Division (“Court”) denied the Filshie clip defendants’ motions to dismiss in its Order dated February 22, 2023 in a case in which the plaintiffs sought damages under Missouri law based on injuries they allege to have sustained in connection with the use of Filshie Clips, a medical device used in tubal ligations.

Plaintiff Kristin Bergdoll underwent a tubal ligation procedure in 2004 in which a Filshie Clip was utilized. Plaintiffs’ Complaint, filed on January 20, 2022, alleges claims based on design defect, manufacturing defect, failure to warn, strict liability negligence, violation of consumer protection laws, gross negligence, and punitive damages against the Defendants. In general, Plaintiffs allege the Filshie Clip migrated after the initial procedure causing injury and requiring
surgical intervention. Plaintiffs further contend Defendants did not warn or adequately inform Plaintiffs or their healthcare providers about how frequent the migrations occurred, the severity and permanency of potential injuries, and their notice of adverse reports and injuries.

Defendant Utah Medical Product, Inc. (“UTMD”) moved to dismiss the Complaint arguing the Court lacks personal
jurisdiction; Plaintiff fails to state a claim; and that venue is improper. The Court stated in response: “Plaintiffs’ Complaint alleges facts sufficient to allege that UTMD currently sells, distributes, and markets the Filshie Clips in Missouri and did so at the time the suit was filed. Plaintiffs also allege UTMD had availed itself to the jurisdiction of this Court at the time the Filshie Clip at issue migrated causing Plaintiffs’ alleged damage. The Court finds this is enough to survive a motion to dismiss … During discovery, the specific involvement of UTMD with regard to the allegations raised by Plaintiff will be further identified, including whether it is an “uninvolved parent company.” However, for purposes of the motion to dismiss these arguments are based on facts beyond the face of the Complaint and initial pleadings.”

“Defendant also moves to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims arguing they are preempted by federal law because the Filshie Clip is a Class III Medical Device approved by the FDA’s Premarket Approval (“PMA”) process. Defendants contend that Plaintiffs’ claims for injuries related to a device approved through the PMA process are preempted by the Medical Device Amendments (“MDA”) to the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”) … Plaintiffs’ have alleged enough to survive a motion to dismiss on this issue. A further analysis of this claim may be better suited for summary judgment after discovery. At that time the Court can determine whether the Federal Government has established requirements applicable to Filshie Clips, and if so, whether Plaintiffs’ common law claims are based upon Missouri’s state law requirements that are different from, or in addition to, applicable federal ones. Again, the Court does not rule on whether preemption will ultimately bar Plaintiffs’ claims, only that Plaintiffs have pled enough to survive a motion to dismiss.”

“The Cooper Companies (“TCC”) seeks dismissal of Plaintiffs’ Complaint arguing the Court lacks personal jurisdiction, the Complaint fails to state a claim, and venue is improper. TCC argues it is a Delaware corporation, with its principal place of business in California. TCC states it is not a resident and citizen of Missouri and did not conduct Filshie Clip business in Missouri during the periods relevant to this suit and had “no purposeful contacts with physicians using
Filshie Clips in Missouri.” TCC states it is the parent company of Cooper Medical Inc., and CooperSurgical is a wholly-owned subsidiary of CooperMedical, Inc. TCC contends that this does not give rise to jurisdiction in this Court. TCC argues Plaintiffs must show that the parent company dominates and controls the subsidiary. TCC further argues that there was no relationship between the entities at or before the time of Plaintiff’s procedure. TCC also moves to dismiss for failure to state a claim arguing as a parent company it has no liability as an “uninvolved company.” … Plaintiffs note that CooperSurgical does not contest jurisdiction in their motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs further argue that TCC is the alter ego of CooperSurgical and as a result because jurisdiction exists against CooperSurgical it also exists as to TCC.”

“In order to make a determination on Plaintiffs’ alleged “alter ego” theory the Court would need to evaluate the degree of control TCC holds over CooperSurgical, including consideration of several factors. See Greenwood v. Davol, Inc., 2018 WL 465765, at *3 (E.D. Mo. Jan. 18, 2018). At this time Plaintiffs have made allegations, based on publicly available information, that TCC has control over CooperSurgical sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs cite to the
executive management teams’ common members, the leadership roles held in both companies, the companies’ legal counsel, the companies’ websites, and the press releases that indicate the companies’ involvement and business relations that are “intertangled.” However, again, TCC’s argument that it is an uninvolved parent company may be raised in a subsequent motion based on discovery produced in this case. The Court may reevaluate TCC’s argument if the record presented reflects Plaintiffs cannot establish an alter ego theory based on the evidence presented.”

“Defendant Femcare, moves to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) arguing Missouri has no personal jurisdiction over Femcare pursuant to the allegations in this case, Plaintiffs’ Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and venue in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri is improper … the Court finds, based on Plaintiffs’ allegations, Femcare has sufficient minimum contacts in Missouri to avail itself to personal jurisdiction in this Court.”

“Wherefore, for the reasons set forth herein, the Court DENIES Defendant Utah Medical Product, Inc.’s (“UTMD”) Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 21); Defendant The Cooper Companies (“TCC”) Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 23); Defendant CooperSurgical (“CSI”) Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 25) and Defendant Femcare’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 43).”

Bergdoll v. CooperSurgical, Inc., Case 6:22-cv-03018-MDH.

WE ARE CURRENTLY INVESTIGATING FILSHIE CLIP MIGRATION CLAIMS THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES.

If you or a loved one suffered injury or other harm from Filshie clip migration, or other Filshie clip issues, in the United States, you should promptly find a lawyer who may investigate your Filshie clip claim for you and represent you or your loved one in a Filshie clip case, if appropriate.

Visit our website or call us toll-free in the United States at 800-295-3959 to find Filshie clip attorneys who may assist you with your Filshie clip claim.

Turn to us when you don’t know where to turn.