Urbieta v. Mentor Corporation

Background

The Urbietas were among plaintiffs who sued Mentor based on Mentor’s design, manufacture, and sale of the ObTape transobturator vaginal sling device, which was used to treat urinary incontinence. Graciela Urbieta alleged that the device caused injuries including erosion through internal bodily tissues, chronic infections, pain, worsened urinary incontinence, additional surgeries and medical treatment, and a need for future medical care. The plaintiffs asserted claims including strict liability, negligence, breach of warranty, fraud, misrepresentation, and loss of consortium.

After the cases were returned from multidistrict litigation to the District of Minnesota, Magistrate Judge Steven E. Rau coordinated the cases for settlement and pretrial purposes. The Urbieta case and another case were selected as test cases for motions seeking to add punitive-damages claims, with the understanding that Judge Rau’s ruling would apply to the other cases. The Urbietas moved to amend their pleadings to add punitive damages.

Issue and Magistrate Judge’s Order

Judge Rau considered whether the motions to amend should be evaluated under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 or Minnesota Statute § 549.191. Rule 15 generally allows amendment of a pleading when justice requires. Minnesota Statute § 549.191 requires an affidavit showing the factual basis for a punitive-damages claim and requires the court to determine whether the motion is supported by prima facie evidence, meaning evidence sufficient on its face to support the claim.

Judge Rau applied Rule 15. He concluded that Rule 15 answered the question because it governs whether a party may amend a complaint, and that the amended pleading need only be legally sufficient and not futile. After reviewing the allegations, he concluded that, as of July 16, 2004, Mentor knew facts creating a high probability of injury. He therefore permitted plaintiffs implanted with ObTape after that date to add punitive-damages claims. The Urbietas qualified, while the plaintiff in the other selected case did not.

District Court’s Analysis

Mentor objected, arguing that Minnesota Statute § 549.191 controlled and that Judge Rau should have considered admissible evidence rather than only the allegations. Mentor also argued that Judge Rau misapplied the Supreme Court’s decision in Shady Grove Orthopedic Associates, P.C. v. Allstate Insurance Co. and failed to apply the approach stated in Justice Stevens’s separate opinion in that case.

The district court reviewed the objection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), which requires affirmance of a magistrate judge’s ruling on a nondispositive pretrial issue unless the ruling is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. The court held that a motion to amend to add punitive damages is a nondispositive pretrial motion subject to that deferential review, rather than de novo review, which would involve an independent reconsideration of the issue.

The court held that Judge Rau’s decision to use Rule 15 was not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. It reasoned that the Supreme Court’s Shady Grove decision supports determining first whether the federal rule directly answers the question. Rule 15 directly addresses whether a complaint may be amended, while Minnesota’s statute requires a different evidentiary showing. The court also held that the Minnesota pleading statute does not define the scope of the substantive state-law right to punitive damages and therefore does not displace Rule 15 under the Rules Enabling Act.

Disposition

Judge Ann D. Montgomery overruled Mentor Corporation and Mentor Worldwide LLC’s objection and affirmed Magistrate Judge Rau’s May 15, 2018 order. The opinion did not decide whether the Urbietas would ultimately recover punitive damages; it decided only the standard governing their request to add those claims and upheld the permission to amend.