MEDICAL DEVICES-PACEMAKER-STRICT LIABILITY

Plaintiff Richard M. Ford (“Mr. Ford”) and Sandy S. Ford (“Mrs. Ford”) (collectively, “the Fords” or “Plaintiffs”) initiated this action by filing a complaint in the Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas against Defendants St. Jude Medical, LLC and St. Jude Medical S.C., Inc., (collectively, “Defendants”). On October 18, 2021, Defendants removed this case to federal court. The Fords’ operative amended complaint (“Amended Complaint”) asserts claims of negligence, strict liability, and breach of express and implied warranties against Defendants, as well as a claim for loss for consortium brought by Mrs. Ford related to injuries Mr. Ford suffered when his pacemaker failed. Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (the “Report”) of the Honorable Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson addressing a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint filed by Defendants. The Report recommends the motion to dismiss be granted in part and denied in part. The Court agrees with all the conclusions set forth in the well-reasoned Report, except for the recommendation to deny Defendants’ motion to dismiss the loss of consortium claim. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss will be GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiffs’ objections will be OVERRULED. Defendants’ objections will be OVERRULED in part and SUSTAINED in part. This Court agrees with the Report’s reasoning and conclusion that Comment k applies to all strict liability claims, including those for medical devices. This Court will adopt the Report’s recommendation that the strict liability claims be dismissed with prejudice. Defendants motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ strict liability claim is GRANTED. Defendants’ motion to dismiss the breach of implied warranties claim is GRANTED. See Gross, 858 F. Supp. 2d at 500-01. Plaintiffs’ breach of implied warranties claim is DISMISSED with prejudice. The Report’s recommendations (1) that Defendants’ motion to dismiss be granted with respect to the negligence claim and (2) that Defendants’ motion to dismiss be denied as to the breach of expressed warranties claim is adopted. Defendants’ motion to dismiss the negligence claim is GRANTED. Plaintiffs’ negligence claim is DISMISSED without prejudice. Defendants’ motion to dismiss the express warranties claim is DENIED. The court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Juge Carlson and agrees with its well-reasoned conclusions in all respects except for the loss of consortium claim. Plaintiffs’ objections to the Report are OVERRULED. Defendants’ objection that the loss of consortium claim be dismissed without prejudice is SUSTAINED. Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED in part with respect to the strict liability, breach of implied warranties, negligence, and loss of consortium claims in Counts I, II, III, and IV. Defendants’ motion to dismiss is DENIED in part with respect to the breach of express warranties in Count III. Plaintiffs’ strict liability and breach of implied warranties claims are DISMISSED with prejudice. Plaintiffs’ negligence and loss of consortium claims are DISMISSED without prejudice. An appropriate Order follows.