United States District Court, D. Maryland
L. Hollander United States District Judge
product liability action, plaintiff Anna Laughlin sued
defendants Mid Atlantic Medical, LLC (“MAM”);
MAM's president, Brett Shoop; Biomet, Inc.; Biomet
Orthopedics, LLC; Biomet U.S. Reconstruction, LLC; and Biomet
Manufacturing, Inc. ECF 2
(“Complaint”).Plaintiff alleges that her hip
replacement, a Biomet M2a Magnum Metal-on-Metal Hip System
(the “Magnum”), caused substantial injuries,
necessitating subsequent hip replacement surgery. Further,
she asserts that defendants marketed the Magnum as safe
despite knowing that it was defective.
Complaint contains asserts eight counts. Count One alleges a
claim for negligence against all defendants. Count Two,
lodged against all defendants, alleges a claim for negligent
failure to warn. In Count Three, plaintiff asserts a claim of
“Strict Liability Failure to Warn, ” lodged
against all defendants. Count Four lodges a claim of strict
liability against all defendants. Count Five, raised against
the “Biomet Defendants, ” contains a claim for
beach of implied warranty. Count Six asserts a claim against
the Biomet Defendants for breach of express warranties. Count
Seven contains a claim against all defendants for
“Violation of Maryland Consumer Protection Act.”
And, Count Eight sets forth a claim against all defendants
case was among many filed against Biomet. On October 2, 2012,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, the Joint Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML”), consolidated
all cases involving Biomet's Magnum into a Multi-District
Litigation action (“MDL”) for coordinated
pretrial proceedings. See In re: Biomet M2A Magnum Hip
Implant Prods. Liab. Litig., 896 F.Supp.2d 1339, 1340
(J.P.M.L. 2012). The MDL was assigned to Judge Robert Miller,
Jr. of the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Indiana. Id. Plaintiff's case was
transferred to the MDL on October 10, 2014. ECF 23.
extensive pretrial proceedings, plantiff's case was
remanded to this District on December 28, 2018, as part of
the second remand group. MDL-2391, Dkt. No. 3741;
ELH-14-1645, ECF 24. In the transfer order, Judge Miller
explained that of the approximately 3, 000 cases that were
part of the MDL, 90% had settled as part of a master
settlement agreement arrived at ¶ 2014. See
MDL-2391, Dkt. No. 3738 at 2-3, 6; see also
MDL-2391, Dkt. No. 1317 (Master Settlement Agreement).
Accordingly, the remaining cases were being sent to their
proper districts for trial. MDL-2391, Dkt. No. 3738 at 13.
Further, Judge Miller observed, id.:
Any case might present its own atypical need, but for the
most part, here is what will be left to do after remand: (1)
additional, non-duplicative, case-specific depositions; (2)
disclosure of case-specific experts, service of case-specific
expert reports, and case-specific expert depositions; (3) any
motions addressing the testimony of case-specific experts;
(4) any motions (or, perhaps, trial objections) directed to
the recorded trial testimony of the plaintiffs' generic
experts; (5) any other motions addressing the testimony of
generic or case-specific experts; and (6) any summary
September 13, 2019, plaintiff submitted a one-page motion,
asking the Court to consolidate her case with other pending
Biomet cases, and incorporating by reference the arguments
set forth in two motions to consolidate pending before the
Court. ECF 45 (the “Motion”). However,
plaintiff did not specify which particular group of
plaintiffs she sought to join. Nor did she address the
rationale for joinder of the cases. Defendants oppose
consolidation (ECF 48), supported by two exhibits. ECF 48-1
and ECF 48-2. Plaintiff did not reply, and the time to do so
has expired. See Local Rule 105.2.
the other lawsuits against Biomet that are pending before the
Court, plaintiff seeks to recover from MAM, a distributor of
Magnum devices, and Shoop, MAM's president.However, the
Motion does not address the import of these defendants in
regard to the consolidation of Laughlin's action with
other Biomet suits. But, it would seem that the addition of
these defendants changes the landscape for joinder; their
presence as parties would likely require the presentation of
additional evidence, unrelated to the Biomet Defendants.
Their presence as parties would also give rise to distinct
questions of law and fact that militate against
consolidation. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a).
the Motion is DENIED, without prejudice to the right of
plaintiff to seek consolidation in a motion that addresses
the significance, if any, of the MAM and Shoop with respect
to the question of consolidation.
Order follows, consistent with this Memorandum.
 Plaintiff filed suit on April 9, 2014,
in the Circuit Court for Calvert County. ECF 2. Biomet
removed the case to this Court on May 20, 2104. ECF 1
(“Notice of Removal”). The case was initially
assigned to Judge Peter Messitte.
 At the time of the filing of this
Memorandum Opinion, six other lawsuits are pending against
Biomet in this District. See Harris v. Biomet
Orthopedics, LLC, ELH-18-3924 (D. Md.); Harbold v.
Biomet Orthopedics, LLC, ELH-18-3925 (D. Md.);
Kandel v. Biomet Orthopedics, LLC, ELH-18-3926 (D.
Md.); Ringley v. Biomet, Inc., ELH-17-747 (D. Md.);
McCoy v. Biomet Orthopedics, LLC, ...