Graham v. Mentor Worldwide LLC, No. 19-3350 (8th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of plaintiff's motion to remand a strict product liability claim against Mentor Worldwide to state court and the district court's subsequent decision to deny plaintiff's voluntary dismissal without prejudice and to dismiss her claim against Mentor Worldwide with prejudice. Plaintiff's claims relate to the silicone breast implants she received that were manufactured by Mentor Worldwide.
The court concluded that plaintiff's claim that the district court erred in denying her motion to remand her strict product liability claim against Mentor Worldwide to state court was not properly before it. The court explained that, because the district court had diversity jurisdiction when it entered final judgment, there is nothing to remand. Because the court affirmed the dismissal with prejudice, the court need not determine whether remand would be required if it reversed the district court's final judgment on the merits and determined that remand had been improperly denied. Finally, the court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff's motion to dismiss without prejudice.
Court Description: [Loken, Author, with Smith, Chief Judge, and Melloy, Circuit Judge] Civil case - Civil procedure. Plaintiff's claim that the district court erred in denying her motion to remand her strict liability claim against defendant to state court is not properly before the court; the district court had diversity jurisdiction when it entered final judgment and there is nothing to remand; because this court affirms the dismissal with prejudice the court need not determine whether remand would be required if the court reversed the district court's final judgment on the merits and determined that remand had been improperly denied; the district court did not err in denying plaintiff's motion to dismiss without prejudice.
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.