Bergman v. Johnson & Johnson

Background

Sarah and Ken Bergman and Patricia and Anthony Budnik filed one products-liability lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson and Ethicon, Inc. The claims concerned pelvic mesh products. Sarah Bergman received two devices in 2003 at St. John’s Hospital in Maplewood, Minnesota, from Dr. Aaron Kirkemo. Patricia Budnik received one device in 2008 at Park-Nicollet Medical Center from Dr. Michael T. Valley. The opinion states that the surgeries occurred five years apart, involved different surgeons and hospitals, and used different devices.

The plaintiffs alleged that the devices caused post-surgical complications. The Bergmans’ surviving claims included negligent failure to warn, strict liability for failure to warn, and loss of consortium. The opinion also states that the court had earlier dismissed some claims under the rule governing failure to state a legally sufficient claim. The court was separately addressing the plaintiffs’ request to file another amended complaint.

Motion to Sever and Legal Standard

The defendants moved to sever the Bergman plaintiffs’ claims from the Budnik plaintiffs’ claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21, arguing that the plaintiffs did not satisfy the requirements for joining parties under Rule 20. Rule 20 permits plaintiffs to proceed together when their requested relief arises from the same transaction or occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences, and when the action involves a common legal or factual question.

The court explained that similar events are not necessarily the same transaction or occurrence. The events must involve shared, overlapping facts supporting the claims. The court also stated that severance is discretionary and may be ordered to manage the cases.

Court’s Analysis

The court found that the claims were similar but not the same. The plaintiffs underwent different procedures performed by different surgeons at different hospitals five years apart. The Bergmans and Budniks used different pelvic mesh products. Their alleged complications also differed: only two of the conditions identified in the complaint were shared by both Sarah Bergman and Patricia Budnik.

The plaintiffs argued that the defendants’ marketing campaign for pelvic mesh products was the common transaction or occurrence. The court assumed, for purposes of its analysis, that this argument was correct, but concluded that medical-device marketing was conducted on a doctor-by-doctor basis. The plaintiffs had not shown that the defendants’ interactions with Dr. Christopher Walker and Dr. Evan Griffiths were the same. The court also noted regulatory differences among the products, including that Budnik’s product was categorized as a Class III medical device and Bergman’s products as Class II devices.

Because the court found that the claims did not arise from a single transaction or occurrence, it ended the Rule 20 analysis without deciding whether the claims involved common questions of law or fact.

Disposition

Judge John F. Docherty granted the defendants’ Motion to Sever. The claims of Sarah and Ken Bergman were severed from the claims of Patricia and Anthony Budnik. The plaintiffs were ordered to recast their complaint as two separate complaints within 14 days. The Bergmans’ amended complaint was to remain under case number 20-cv-2693, and the caption was to be changed to identify them as the proceeding plaintiffs. The Budniks were ordered to file a separate action in the district court after paying the required filing fee. The defendants were given 14 days to file a responsive pleading after each recast complaint was filed.