Sparks et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. et al, No. 2:2019cv00095 - Document 14 (S.D.W. Va. 2019)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER The court ORDERS that this civil action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and STRICKEN from the docket and any pending motions are DENIED as moot; if plaintiffs wish to proceed with their claims, they must file their action in the appropriate jurisdiction. Signed by Judge Joseph R. Goodwin on 8/12/2019. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (st)

Download PDF
Sparks et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. et al Doc. 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION IN RE: C. R. BARD, INC., PELVIC REPAIR SYSTEM PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION MDL NO. 2187 THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: LEIGH SPARKS and TERRENCE SPARKS, Plaintiffs, v. Civil Action No. 2:19-cv-00095 Judge Goodwin C. R. BARD, INC. and SOFRADIM PRODUCTION SAS, Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER On June 21, 2018, I entered Pretrial Order (“PTO”) # 284 ordering that “plaintiffs may no longer direct file claims against C. R. Bard, Inc., Sofradim Production SAS and/or Tissue Sciences Laboratories in the C. R. Bard MDL (as set forth in PTO # 123) or in any other pelvic mesh MDL assigned to the court[.]” See In re: C. R. Bard, Inc., Pelvic Repair Sys. Prods. Liab. Litig., 2:10md-2187 (“MDL 2187”) [ECF # 6075]. In the past I have allowed certain Complaints filed after PTO # 284 to remain in this court if the defendant had filed an answer pursuant to PTO # 51 and/or the case had a docket control order in place. In this civil action, (1) plaintiffs filed their complaint against C. R. Bard, Inc. Dockets.Justia.com (“Bard”) on February 6, 2019, and filed an Amended Short Form Complaint on July 29, 2019, adding Sofradim Production, SAS (“Sofradim”) as a defendant, (2) there is no indication that Sofradim has been served, (3) neither defendant has answered, (4) Bard has filed a Motion to Dismiss, and (5) although this case is on a docket control order, several deadlines on the docket control order have passed prior to the service of the complaint upon Bard or service of the amended complaint, that would necessitate a new docket control order should this case be allowed to proceed in this court. Thus, this action should be dismissed pursuant to PTO # 284. Because this case will be dismissed, I decline to rule upon the Bard defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [ECF # 6]. Pursuant to PTO # 284 the court ORDERS that this civil action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and STRICKEN from the docket and any pending motions are DENIED as moot. If plaintiffs wish to proceed with their claims, they must file their action in the appropriate jurisdiction. The court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any unrepresented party. ENTER: August 12, 2019 2

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.