Kinetic Co. v. Medtronic, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that complaint in defective product case satisfied Rule 9(b) even though it did “not identify precisely which Medtronic employee used which words to sell the particular device”
• concluding that complaint in defective product case satisfied Rule 9(b) even though it did \not identify precisely which Medtronic employee used which words to sell the particular device\
• holding that “the ‘public benefit’ requirement is not onerous” and that “there is a 14 public benefit in eliminating false or misleading advertising” where “if, but for plaintiff’s lawsuit, 15 other ‘potential consumers might have been injured in the same manner”
• observing that, when “a product is recalled from the market before a lawsuit is filed, a plaintiff may not be able to argue that ‘but for’ its lawsuit, a defendant would have continued to make false representations” in order to demonstrate a public benefit
• determining the plaintiff met the Rule 9(b) burden even though “the complaint [did] not identify precisely which Medtronic employee used which words to sell the particular device . . . or precisely which representations were made”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).