Tuesday, August 6, 2013

DePuy ASR Lawsuit News: Bernstein Liebhard LLP Notes DePuy Orthopaedic’s Motion for Summary Judgment in California Bellwether Case

PR Wed

New York, New York (PRWEB) August 03, 2013
Lawsuits filed in the wake of the 2010 DePuy ASR recall (http://www.depuy-asr-hip-recall.com/) continue to move forward in courts around the country. On July 26th, DePuy Orthopaedics moved for summary judgment in a bellwether case scheduled to go to trial October 1st in a consolidated proceeding now underway in California Superior Court. According to court documents, the Plaintiff has until August 30th to file an opposition to the motion. Judge Richard A. Kramer, who is overseeing the California DePuy ASR recall litigation, has scheduled a hearing on dispositive motions for September 13, 2013. (DePuy ASR HIP System Cases, No. CJC-10-004649; Calif. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty.)

[What is a summary Judgment:

In law, a summary judgment (also judgment as a matter of law) is a judgment entered by a court for one party and against another party summarily, i.e., without a full trial. Such a judgment may be issued on the merits of an entire case, or on discrete issues in that case.

In common-law systems, questions about what the law actually is in a particular case are decided by judges; in rare cases jury nullification of the law may act to contravene or complement the instructions or orders of the judge, or other officers of the court. A factfinder has to decide what the facts are and apply the law. In traditional common law the factfinder was a jury, but in many jurisdictions the judge now acts as the factfinder as well. It is the factfinder who decides "what really happened," and it is the judge who applies the law to the facts as determined by the factfinder, whether directly or by giving instructions to the jury.
Absent an award of summary judgment (or some type of pretrial dismissal), a lawsuit will ordinarily proceed to trial, which is an opportunity for litigants to present evidence in an attempt to persuade the factfinder that they are saying "what really happened," and that, under the applicable law, they should prevail.

The necessary steps before a case can get to trial include disclosing documents to the opponent by discovery, showing the other side the evidence, often in the form of witness statements. This process is lengthy, and can be difficult and costly.

A party moving (applying) for summary judgment is attempting to avoid the time and expense of a trial when the outcome is obvious. A party may also move for summary judgement in order to eliminate the risk of losing at trial, and possibly avoid having to go through discovery (i.e., by moving at the outset of discovery), by demonstrating to the judge, via sworn statements and documentary evidence, that there are no material factual issues remaining to be tried. If there's nothing for the factfinder to decide, then the moving party asks rhetorically, why have a trial? The moving party will also attempt to persuade the court that the undisputed material facts require judgment to be entered in its favor. In many jurisdictions, a party moving for summary judgment takes the risk that, although the judge may agree there are no material issues of fact remaining for trial, the judge may also find that it is the non-moving party that is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.]

I see this motion by Depuy as a positive step for the plaintiffs.  You have a number of aggressive litigation attorneys in So Calif and Depuy lost the first trial there with an award to the Plaintiff of $8M dollars!

1 comment:

  1. Has anyone collected pain & suffering money from DePuy on their own (no lawyers involved). I don't know if I should seek legal help for this or not.
    Jeanne

    ReplyDelete