Axline v. 3M Company, No. 19-1180 (8th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff, whose case is part of the Bair Hugger multidistrict litigation (MDL) against 3M, appeals the district court's orders deciding that Ohio substantive law applies in her case and denying her motion for leave to amend her complaint. The Eighth Circuit affirmed, concluding that, after consideration of the eleven factors that may be considered in an Ohio choice-of-law analysis, the district court did not err in deciding that Ohio substantive law governed this case. In this case, plaintiff has not rebutted the presumption that the substantive law of Ohio, the state where she was injured, governs this products liability case. The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff's motion for leave to amend the complaint where plaintiff failed to comply with local rules.
Court Description: [Gruender, Author, with Kelly and Grasz, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Products Liability - Bair Hugger Forced Air Warming Devices Products Liability Litigation. The district court did not err in determining the law of Ohio, the place where plaintiff was injured, governs this case; nor did the court err in granting 3M judgment on the pleadings based on its determination that plaintiff had failed to plead actionable claims under Ohio products liability law; nor did the district court err in denying plaintiff leave to amend her claims based on her failure to comply with the local rules governing amendments;dismissal with prejudice affirmed.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.