Granillo v. Ethicon Incorporated

6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Monica Granillo, et al., No. CV-19-00529-TUC-CKJ (MSA) 10 Plaintiffs, ORDER v. Ethicon LLC, et al., 13 Defendants.

15 On February 12, 2020 Magistrate Judge Maria S. Aguilera issued a Report and Recommendation (Doc. 59) in which she recommended the Court enter an Order granting in part and denying in part Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 26).

18 The Report and Recommendation advised the parties that any party may serve and file written objections within fourteen (14) days of being served with a copy of the Report and Recommendation. No objections have been filed within the time provided by Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2).1 22 After an independent review, the Courts finds it appropriate to adopt the Report and Recommendation and grant in part and deny in part Defendants Ethicon, Inc. and Johnson 1 The standard of review that is applied to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation is dependent upon whether a party files an objection – the Court need not review portions of a report to which a party does not object. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985).

However, the Court must “determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to. The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Nonetheless, “while the statute does not require the judge to review an issue de novo if no objections are filed, it does not preclude further review by the district judge, sua sponte or at the request of a party, under a de novo or any other standard.” Thomas, 474 U.S. at 154.

1 || & Johnson’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. (Doc. 26).

2 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED: 3 1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 59) is adopted.

4 2. Defendants Ethicon, Inc. and Johnson & Johnson’s Motion for Partial 5 Summary Judgment (Doc. 26) is granted in part and denied in part.

6 a. On Counts Two, Three, Four, Seven, Eight, Nine, Ten, Eleven, Twelves, 7 Thirteen, Fourteen, and Fifteen, Defendants’ summary judgment is 8 granted.

9 b. On Count One, summary judgment is granted in part and denied in 10 part. To the extent Plaintiffs have alleged claims of negligent 11 manufacture and negligent failure to warn, summary judgment is granted.

12 To the extent Plaintiffs have alleged a claim of negligent design, 13 summary judgment is denied.

14 3. Counts One (in part), Five, Six, Sixteen, Seventeen, and Eighteen remain for 15 trial.

16 Dated this 17th day of March, 2020.

Ea Dagar 18 Honorable Cingf’K. J6tgenson United States District Judge _2-