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.

American Medical Systems, LLC v. MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC

Florida Court of Appeals, Third District

December 11, 2019

American Medical Systems, LLC, etc., et al., Petitioners,
v.
MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC, et al., Respondents.

         Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

          On Petition for Writ of Certiorari from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County Lower Tribunal No. 18-30982, David C. Miller, Judge.

          Reed Smith LLP, and Edward M. Mullins, Lisa M. Baird, David J. de Jesus and Christina Olivos, for petitioners.

          MSP Recovery Law Firm, and John H. Ruiz, Michael O. Mena, Gino Moreno and Christine M. Lugo, for respondents.

          Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, Andrew R. Kruppa and Amanda E. Preston; Rumberger, Kirk & Caldwell, P.A., and Joshua D. Lerner, for Ethicon, Inc. and Boston Scientific Corporation, as amici curiae.

          Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, and Kathryn L. Ender, Joelle C. Sharman and Brian S. Goldenberg, for ALN International, Inc. and ALN Implants Chirurgicaux, as amici curiae.

          Before EMAS, C.J., and LOGUE and SCALES, JJ.

          PER CURIAM.

         American Medical Systems, LLC, f/k/a American Medical Systems, Inc., American Medical Systems Holdings, Inc., Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Endo Health Solutions, Inc. f/k/a Endo Pharmaceuticals Holdings, Inc. (collectively "Petitioners"), the defendants below, seek a writ of certiorari to quash the trial court's non-final order denying their motion to dismiss the amended complaint for a pure bill of discovery filed by the plaintiffs below, MSP Recovery Claims, Series, LLC, MSPA Claims 1, LLC, and Series PMPI, a Designated Series of MAO-MSO Recovery II, LLC (collectively "Respondents"). Because Petitioners have failed to demonstrate the requisite irreparable harm, we lack jurisdiction to hear, and therefore dismiss, the instant petition. See Villella v. Ansin, 263 So.3d 823, 825 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) ("On this record, where the trial court has not finally resolved whether [the petitioner] may obtain the discovery he seeks . . . we conclude that [the petitioner] has failed to demonstrate the requisite irreparable harm that is required for us to have jurisdiction over this petition."); Lee v. Condell, 208 So.3d 253, 256 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) ("[I]rreparable harm is a condition precedent to invoking certiorari jurisdiction that should be considered first." (quoting Lacaretta Rest. v. Zepeda, 115 So.3d 1091, 1092 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013))); CQB, 2010, LLC v. Bank of N.Y.Mellon, 177 So.3d 644, 645 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) ("The requirement of material, irreparable harm is jurisdictional. We must dismiss the petition if it is not met.").

         I. Relevant Background

         On January 22, 2019, Respondents filed an amended complaint for a pure bill of discovery against Petitioners, seeking to compel Petitioners to identify whether certain Medicare beneficiaries were implanted with pelvic mesh products sold by Petitioners, and whose healthcare costs were subsequently paid by a Medicare Advantage Organization. On May 3, 2019, Petitioners moved to dismiss the amended complaint, arguing that Respondents had failed to state a valid claim for a pure bill of discovery and that Respondents lacked standing to bring such a claim.[1]

         On July 9, 2019, the trial court held a hearing on Petitioners' motion to dismiss the amended complaint and stated that it was denying Petitioners' motion to dismiss. The hearing transcript reflects that the trial court, in denying the motion, confirmed with the parties that the next step in the proceeding was for Petitioners to answer to the amended complaint; but, at Petitioners' request, the trial court agreed to stay the lower proceeding should Petitioners decide to seek appellate review of its order denying the motion to dismiss. The next day, July 10, 2019, the trial court entered the challenged order denying Petitioners' motion to dismiss. While the order requires Petitioners to answer to Respondents' amended complaint within thirty days, the order does not require Petitioners to produce any discovery material. The order also provides that the case shall be stayed pending resolution of any timely appeal or petition.

         On August 9, 2019, Petitioners timely filed the instant petition in this Court seeking certiorari review of the trial court's order denying Petitioners' motion to dismiss. Respondents responded to the petition and, in the same filing, moved to dismiss the petition. Specifically, noting both that the trial court merely ordered Petitioners to answer the amended complaint, and that Petitioners have not yet been ordered to produce any discovery sought therein, Respondents argue that Petitioners cannot demonstrate the requisite irreparable harm that would vest this Court with the jurisdiction to determine whether there has been a departure from the essential requirements of the law.

         II. ...


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.