Edwards v. Thermigen LLC

Background

Fernando Edwards, identified as the administrator of the medical office of his wife, Dr. Sharon de Edwards, originally filed the lawsuit against several defendants concerning the sale of a medical device. Thermigen LLC was the remaining defendant. After earlier motions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17, Dr. de Edwards filed a First Amended Complaint in her own name.

The First Amended Complaint alleged that Dr. de Edwards owned the medical device purchased for her by her husband. The attached purchase agreement identified “Sharon de Edwards, MD OB/GYN” as the party to be billed and the company, and identified “Sharon de Edwards, MD” as the physician. Mr. Edwards signed as an authorized officer or physician.

Dr. de Edwards asserted California-law claims for breach of contract, unfair and fraudulent business practices, false advertising, deceit, and negligent infliction of emotional distress.

Motion and Analysis

Thermigen moved to dismiss under Rule 17, arguing that the real party in interest—the person or entity legally entitled to pursue the claims—was “the Medical Office of Sharon de Edwards, MD FACOG NCMP, Inc.,” rather than Dr. de Edwards.

Because the case was based on diversity jurisdiction, the court applied the California law underlying Dr. de Edwards’s claims. Under that law, the real party in interest generally is the person or entity possessing the right being sued upon. The court found that the complaint alleged Dr. de Edwards owned the device and that the purchase agreement listed her as the purchaser. The court therefore concluded that she was the real party in interest.

Thermigen relied on documents from a separate state-court case brought by the company that financed the device sale. Those documents identified the medical-office corporation as the debtor in that separate matter. The court found that the documents did not control interpretation of the purchase agreement at issue in this case, which identified Dr. de Edwards in the relevant places.

Ruling and Case Status

The court denied Thermigen’s motion to dismiss. The order did not dismiss the case or resolve the merits of Dr. de Edwards’s claims.

After Thermigen filed the motion, the court determined that the First Amended Complaint did not properly allege diversity jurisdiction and ordered Dr. de Edwards to show cause. The court found that her response resolved the issue and treated that filing as the operative Second Amended Complaint. Thermigen was ordered to answer within 20 days. The order disposed of Docket No. 57.