Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_19-cv-00529/USCOURTS-azd-4_19-cv-00529-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Product Liability

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Monica Granillo, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v. 

Ethicon LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-19-00529-TUC-CKJ (MSA)

ORDER 

On February 12, 2020 Magistrate Judge Maria S. Aguilera issued a Report and 

Recommendation (Doc. 59) in which she recommended the Court enter an Order granting 

in part and denying in part Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 26). 

The Report and Recommendation advised the parties that any party may serve and 

file written objections within fourteen (14) days of being served with a copy of the Report 

and Recommendation. No objections have been filed within the time provided by Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 72(b)(2).1

After an independent review, the Courts finds it appropriate to adopt the Report and 

Recommendation and grant in part and deny in part Defendants Ethicon, Inc. and Johnson 

1 The standard of review that is applied to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation 

is dependent upon whether a party files an objection – the Court need not review portions 

of a report to which a party does not object. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). 

However, the Court must “determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition 

that has been properly objected to. The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the 

recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate 

judge with instructions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

Nonetheless, “while the statute does not require the judge to review an issue de novo if no 

objections are filed, it does not preclude further review by the district judge, sua sponte or 

at the request of a party, under a de novo or any other standard.” Thomas, 474 U.S. at 154.

Case 4:19-cv-00529-CKJ-MSA Document 65 Filed 03/18/20 Page 1 of 2
- 2 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

& Johnson’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. (Doc. 26).

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED:

1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 59) is adopted.

2. Defendants Ethicon, Inc. and Johnson & Johnson’s Motion for Partial 

Summary Judgment (Doc. 26) is granted in part and denied in part. 

a. On Counts Two, Three, Four, Seven, Eight, Nine, Ten, Eleven, Twelves, 

Thirteen, Fourteen, and Fifteen, Defendants’ summary judgment is 

granted. 

b. On Count One, summary judgment is granted in part and denied in 

part. To the extent Plaintiffs have alleged claims of negligent 

manufacture and negligent failure to warn, summary judgment is granted. 

To the extent Plaintiffs have alleged a claim of negligent design, 

summary judgment is denied. 

3. Counts One (in part), Five, Six, Sixteen, Seventeen, and Eighteen remain for 

trial. 

Dated this 17th day of March, 2020.

Case 4:19-cv-00529-CKJ-MSA Document 65 Filed 03/18/20 Page 2 of 2