Grenier v. Medical Engineering Corp.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that various non-LPLA claims, including negligent infliction of emotional distress, “are all well outside the scope of the LPLA and must be dismissed”
• holding that because “[plaintiff] had ample opportunity to present evidence supporting her claims, but she failed to do so,” there was “no reason to remand the case to reopen discovery”
• holding that because “[plaintiff] had ample opportunity to present evidence supporting her claims, but she failed to do so,” there was “no reason to remand the case to reopen discovery”
• explaining that a negligence claim is “well outside the scope of the LPLA and must be dismissed”
• affirming the district court’s dismissal of a fraud claim and other tort claims not among the exclusive theories of liability in the LPLA
• affirming dismissal of failure to warn claim when plaintiff presented no evidence about the cause, frequency, severity, or consequences of the allegedly dangerous quality of the product

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).