United States District Court, C.D. Illinois, Springfield Division
MYERSCOUGH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
cause is before the Court on the Motion to Dismiss (d/e 19)
filed by Defendant Abiomed, Inc. Defendant seeks to dismiss
the product liability, implied warranty of merchantability,
negligence/spoliation of evidence, and res ipsa
loquitor claims (Counts I through IV) filed by Plaintiff
Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The
Motion to Dismiss Counts I, II, and IV is DENIED. The Motion
to Dismiss Count III is GRANTED.
Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332(a). Complete diversity exists between the
parties. Plaintiff is a citizen of Illinois. Defendant is
incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware and has
its principal place of business in Massachusetts. In
addition, the amount in controversy exceeds $75, 000
exclusive of interest and costs. In the Complaint, Plaintiff
seeks damages in excess of $75, 000 and alleges that his
injuries include the loss of three fingers on his dominant
motion under Rule 12(b)(6) challenges the sufficiency of the
complaint. Christensen v. Cnty. of Boone, Ill., 483
F.3d 454, 458 (7th Cir. 2007). To state a claim for relief, a
plaintiff need only provide a short and plain statement of
the claim showing he is entitled to relief and giving the
defendant fair notice of the claims. Tamayo v.
Blagojevich, 526 F.3d 1074, 1081 (7th Cir. 2008).
considering a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the
Court construes the complaint in the light most favorable to
the plaintiff, accepting all well-pleaded allegations as true
and construing all reasonable inferences in plaintiff's
favor. Id. However, the complaint must set forth
facts that plausibly demonstrate a claim for relief. Bell
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 547 (2007). A
plausible claim is one that alleges factual content from
which the Court can reasonably infer that the defendant is
liable for the misconduct alleged. Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Merely reciting the
elements of a cause of action or supporting claims with
conclusory statements is insufficient to state a cause of
FACTS ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT
following facts come from the Amended Complaint and are
accepted as true at the motion to dismiss stage.
Tamayo, 526 F.3d at 1081.
January 5, 2018, Plaintiff underwent open heart surgery for
an acute myocardial infarction secondary to acute occlusion
of the left main coronary. An Impella-which is designed and
manufactured to be used as a pump during cardiac surgery-was
used during his surgery for the purpose for which it was
manufactured. The Impella used during Plaintiff's surgery
had not been used before.
Plaintiff 's open-heart surgery, Defendant's Impella
could not be removed. Therefore, Plaintiff had to undergo
another surgical procedure on January 5, 2018. As a result of
the inability to remove the Impella, Plaintiff experienced
ischemia in his extremities, which resulted in the amputation
of the middle three fingers of his left, dominant hand.
alleges that, when the Impella in question was manufactured,
sold, distributed, or left the control of Defendant, it was
unreasonably dangerous. Plaintiff alleges that the lead of
the Impella, which was supposed to release after the surgical
procedure was completed, was improperly manufactured.
regard to the negligence and spoliation of evidence claim,
Count III, Plaintiff also alleges, on information and belief,
that, based on an investigation conducted on behalf of
Plaintiff, a representative of Defendant was present when the
Impella was removed during the second procedure and that the
representative knew the second procedure was necessary due to
the inability to remove the Impella following the first
procedure. Defendant's representative negligently allowed
the spoliation and destruction of the Impella in question,
even though it was ...