Smith et al v. Ethicon, Inc. et al, No. 3:2020cv00851 - Document 135 (D. Or. 2020)
Court Description: Opinion and Order: Upon review, I agree with Judge Acosta's Opinion and Order [ECF 128 ] and I ADOPT it as my own opinion. Defendants' Motion to Enforce MDL Order [ECF 116 ] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Plaintiffs' Objections [ECF 129 ] are DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 17th day of December, 2020 by United States District Judge Michael W. Mosman. (pjg)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Smith et al v. Ethicon, Inc. et al3:20-cv-00851-AC Case Document 135 Filed 12/17/20 Doc. 135 Page 1 of 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION BARBARA SMITH, and GARY SMITH, Plaintiffs, No. 3:20-cv-00851-AC V. ETHICON, INC., and JOHNSON & JOHNSON, OPINION AND ORDER Defendants. MOSMAN,J., On October 13, 2020, Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta issued an Opinion and Order [ECF 128] granting in part and denying in part Defendants' Motion to Enforce MDL Order [ECF 116]. Plaintiffs Barbara and Gary Smith filed objections [ECF 129]. Upon review, I agree with Judge Acosta and DENY Plaintiffs' Objections [ECF 129]. DISCUSSION A magistrate judge in a civil action is permitted "to hear and determine any pretrial matter pending before the court, except a motion for injunctive relief, for judgment on the pleadings, for summary judgment, ... to dismiss or to permit maintenance of a class action, to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and to involuntarily dismiss an action." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(A); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) ("When a pretrial matter not dispositive of a party's claim or defense is referred to a magistrate judge to hear and decide, the 1 - OPINION AND ORDER Dockets.Justia.com Case 3:20-cv-00851-AC Document 135 Filed 12/17/20 Page 2 of 2 magistrate judge must promptly conduct, the required proceedings and, when appropriate, issue a written order stating the decision."); LR 72-1. When a magistrate judge decides a matter under § 636(b)(l)(A), a district judge may reconsider the magistrate's order if the order is "clearly erroneous or contrary to law." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(A). Similarly, under Rule 72(a), "[t]he district judge in the case must consider timely objections and modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law." Upon review, I agree with Judge Acosta's Opinion and Order [ECF 128] and I ADOPT it as my own opinion. Defendants' Motion to Enforce MDL Order [ECF 116] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Plaintiffs' Objections [ECF 129] are DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this _ _ day of December, 2020. MICHAEL W. MOSMAN United States District Judge 2 - OPINION AND ORDER
]]>
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.
