Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In re Biomet M2a Magnum Hip Implant Products Liability Litigation

United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, South Bend Division

March 23, 2015

IN RE: BIOMET M2a MAGNUM HIP IMPLANT PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION (MDL 2391)

OPINION AND ORDER

ROBERT L. MILLER, Jr., District Judge.

The plaintiffs' motions to enforce the Master Settlement Agreement are before me. The defendants (collectively referred to as "Biomet") objected, and I heard oral arguments on March 17, 2015. For the following reasons, I deny the plaintiffs' motions.

I. BACKGROUND

The following facts are derived from the exhibits attached to plaintiffs' reply brief [Doc. No. 32-1 and 32-2] (emails between plaintiffs' counsel, Ilyas Sayeg, and Biomet's lead counsel, John Winter) and Mr. Winter's affidavit [Doc. No. 30-1].

In November 2014, Biomet exercised its right under ¶ 3(b) of the Settlement Agreement to dispute the amount of compensation payable to these plaintiffs - George Holmes, Griseth DeJesus, and Rita Taranto - and to proceed to mediation. Mediation had yet to occur when, on December 1, Mr. Winter emailed plaintiffs' counsel, Mr. Sayeg, and (1) made an offer to settle Mr. DeJesus's and Ms. Taranto's claims, (2) gave an estimate of what he thought Mr. Holmes's claim was worth, and (3) told Mr. Sayeg that one or more of the cases could proceed to mediation if the plaintiffs wished.

No evidence was presented as to whether Mr. DeJesus or Ms. Taranto formally accepted Biomet's offers to settle, or, if so, when that might have occurred. But Mr. Sayeg emailed Mr. Winter on December 22, 2014 and made a "counter offer" to settle Mr. Holmes' claim, to which Mr. Winter replied: "Ok to resolve at $[redacted]K."

During the course of these negotiations, Mr. Sayeg and/or his firm and Mr. Winter were engaged in an ongoing discovery dispute involving a motion to compel production of documents in an unrelated Biomet case pending in a Florida circuit court, Zaremba v. Orthopedics, Inc, et al, Case No. 2014-CA-01932-NC. On January 6, Mr. Winter notified Mr. Sayeg that "either he accepted the rules approved by this Court regarding the format of documents already produced or Biomet was going to revoke any settlement offers previously discussed." Mr. Sayeg declined. Mr. Winter revoked the offers to settle these cases.

The next day (January 7), Mr. Sayeg reportedly sent "fully signed and executed settlement agreements" to Biomet on behalf of DeJesus, Taranto, and Holmes, "accept[ing] the terms of the MSA [Master Settlement Agreement]."

On January 11, Mr. Winter sent Mr. Sayeg a letter reiterating that Biomet's offers to settle had been revoked on January 6.

II. DISCUSSION

The plaintiffs moved to enforce the terms of the Master Settlement Agreement, contending that it is "binding" and that they're "eligible plaintiffs" within the meaning of the Master Settlement Agreement, so Biomet is required to settle their claims; that Biomet doesn't have any authority under the Master Settlement Agreement to revoke the settlement offers; and that Biomet shouldn't be allowed to punish these plaintiffs simply because they're represented by the same law firm that represents the plaintiff in Zaremba. The plaintiffs' arguments aren't supported by any legal authority and are inconsistent with key provisions in the Master Settlement Agreement.

Paragraph 3 of the Master Settlement Agreement gives both the plaintiffs and Biomet the right to dispute the base compensation amounts to which specific plaintiffs would otherwise have been entitled to under ¶ 2, and required mediation in those cases. It provides in relevant part:

3. Mediation of Cases: The cases selected by Plaintiffs and Biomet for resolution pursuant to this paragraph will be referred to as the "mediation ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.