MacMunn v. Eli Lilly Co.
United States District Court for the District of Columbia
559 F. Supp. 2d 58 (2008)
- Written by DeAnna Swearingen, LLM
Facts
Judith MacMunn (plaintiff), a Massachusetts resident, claimed that she suffered uterine and cervical deformities, infertility, and physical and mental pain as a result of exposure to Diethylstilbestrol (DES) in utero. MacMunn’s mother is a Massachusetts resident and resided there in 1962 when pregnant with MacMunn. All witnesses and evidence are in Massachusetts. On September 14, 2007, MacMunn and her husband (plaintiff) sued Eli Lilly & Co. (Eli Lilly) (defendant), a manufacturer of DES, in the District of Columbia (D.C.) Superior Court for negligence, strict liability, breach of warranty, misrepresentation, and loss of consortium, seeking compensatory and punitive damages of $6 million. Eli Lilly removed the case to federal court under diversity jurisdiction the following November. Before substantial discovery had taken place, Eli Lilly moved to transfer the case from the United States District Court for the D.C. to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Massachusetts). The plaintiffs opposed the transfer.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Urbina, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.