The heading for this post has a double meaning, referring to products liability claims arising from Medtronic’s recalled Sprint Fidelis “lead,” an implantable cardiac defibrillator (that is, a remedy for a broken heart?), and also the efforts of a flotilla of products liability plaintiffs to revive their lawsuit, which was resoundingly rejected by U.S. District Court Judge Richard Kyle, Sr. (D. Minn.) on a motion to dismiss (that is, seeking a remedy for a broken heart?).
The appeal’s main focuses (foci?) are: (1) the district court’s application of the Twombly pleading standard and its denial of leave to amend; (2) closely related: the district court’s finding of federal preemption in the context of FDA regulation of medical devices to bar plaintiffs’ claims; and (3) whether the judge’s son’s being a partner at a large Minneapolis law firm for whom Medtronic is a major client should have resulted in the judge’s recusing himself (the underlying ruling of the District Court is here).
Plaintiffs’ 93-page appellate brief is here.