Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 18, 2020

Krulewich v. Covidien LP

Judge
John Koeltl
Docket
1:19-cv-02857
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
7
Civil ProcedureMotion to Dismiss
In one sentence

In Krulewich v. Covidien, Judge Koeltl lifted the stay and restored Covidien’s pending motion to dismiss after the federal panel denied transfer.

Who this affects

Jeffrey and Nora Krulewich and Covidien LP; the stay ended, and Covidien’s pending motion to dismiss returned to active status.

What happened

In Krulewich v. Covidien LP, Jeffrey and Nora Krulewich’s case concerns claims related to Covidien hernia mesh products. The case had been paused while a federal panel considered whether to coordinate it with eleven related cases.

The federal panel denied Covidien’s request to centralize the cases, concluding that coordination was not necessary at that time. The panel left open the possibility of seeking coordination later and noted that informal cooperation could reduce duplicated pretrial work.

Judge John G. Koeltl lifted the stay and restored Covidien LP’s motion to dismiss. The excerpt does not show that Judge Koeltl decided that motion or ruled on the underlying claims.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Krulewich v. Covidien LP · No. 1:19-cv-02857
Judge
John Koeltl
Date
Aug. 18, 2020

Background

Jeffrey and Nora Krulewich brought this action against Covidien LP concerning allegations related to Covidien hernia mesh products. Covidien moved to dismiss the plaintiffs’ second amended complaint. The plaintiffs opposed that motion, and Covidien filed a reply.

Stay and Coordination Request

The parties asked the court to pause the case while the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation considered Covidien’s request to centralize this case with eleven other federal actions involving similar allegations. The district court granted the stay on June 19, 2020.

On August 7, 2020, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation denied Covidien’s motion for centralization. The panel concluded that, although centralization could reduce duplicated discovery and inconsistent pretrial rulings, the benefits did not outweigh the disruption under the circumstances. It also noted that informal cooperation and coordination were available alternatives and that the decision was made without prejudice to a future request for centralized proceedings.

Ruling

After the panel denied centralization, Covidien asked the district court to lift the stay and restore its motion to dismiss. Judge John G. Koeltl ordered that the stay be lifted and the motion to dismiss be restored. The excerpt does not state that the court granted or denied the motion to dismiss, and it does not decide the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims.

The authoritative version

Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.