McGuire et al v. B. Braun Medical Inc., et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
SHANNON MCGUIRE AND SUSAN
MCGUIRE
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS 	NO. 25-393
B. BRAUN MEDICAL INC., B.
BRAUN INTERVENTIONAL
SYSTEMS INC., B. BRAUN
MEDICAL
SECTION “R” (1)
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is the partial motion to dismiss plaintiff’s amended
complaint of defendants B. Braun Medical Inc. and B. Braun Interventional
Systems 	Inc.’s 	(collectively 	“Braun”).1 	Plaintiffs 	Shannon 	and 	Susan
McGuire oppose the motion.2 	For the following reasons, the Court grants
defendants’ motion.
I. 	BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs bring this Louisiana products liability case regarding the
Bruan VenaTech LP (the “device”), an inferior vena cava (“IVC”) filter.
Plaintiffs allege that in September 2008, Shannon McGuire underwent
1 	R. Doc. 46.
2 	R. Doc. 54.
Case 2:25-cv-00393-SSV-JVM Document 56 Filed 12/16/25 Page 1 of 7

2
placement of the device at St. Tammany Parish Hospital. 3 	Plaintiffs allege
that around November 2016, a catheterization with visualization of Shannon
McGuire’s IVC displayed it to be unobstructed. 4 Plaintiffs further allege that
in June 2024, Shannon McGuire presented to the St. Tammany Parish
Hospital Emergency Department following three to four days of melena, left
lower quadrant abdominal pain, weakness, and other symptoms. 5 Shannon
McGuire allegedly underwent testing that suggested impaired blood clotting
and a CT scan which raised concerns regarding the device.6 	Specifically,
plaintiffs allege that the CT scan revealed that the device had tilted and
migrated, Shannon McGuire’s IVC was perforated, and two struts were
fractured, the tips of which penetrated and perforated his IVC. 7 	Shannon
McGuire’s condition will allegedly require substantial care including future
surgery. 8 	Plaintiffs allege that Shannon McGuire has suffered and will
continue to suffer significant medical expenses, pain and suffering, loss of
enjoyment of life, disability, other losses, and will require ongoing medical
3 	R. Doc. 43 at ¶¶ 1, 64-65.
4 	Id. at ¶ 67.
5 	Id. at ¶ 68.
6 	Id. at ¶¶ 68-69.
7 	Id. at ¶ 71.
8 	Id. at ¶¶ 72-74, 81-88.
Case 2:25-cv-00393-SSV-JVM Document 56 Filed 12/16/25 Page 2 of 7

3
care. 9 Plaintiffs further allege that Susan McGuire, Shannon McGuire’s wife,
has sustained loss of consortium, loss of services, and loss of society. 10
On February 26, 2025, plaintiffs filed suit in this Court.11 	In their
original complaint plaintiffs brought two claims, one under the Louisiana
Products Liability Act (“LPLA”) and the other for redhibitory defect. 12
Defendants B. Braun Medical Inc. and B. Braun Interventional Systems Inc.
brought a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claims. 13 	This Court granted the
motion to dismiss and provided plaintiffs leave to amend their LPLA
claims. 14 The Court did not grant leave to amend the redhibitory defect claim
as plaintiffs represented that they were withdrawing that claim. 15 	Plaintiffs
timely filed an amended complaint. 16 They once again bring an LPLA claim
and a redhibitory defect claim. 17
9 	Id. at ¶ 92.
10 	Id. at ¶ 93.
11 	See generally R. Doc. 1.
12 	Id. at ¶¶ 54-72.
13 	R. Doc. 13. Former defendant B. Braun Medical separately brought a
motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, R. Doc. 32, which
this Court granted, R. Doc. 52. B. Braun Medical is therefor no longer
a party to this lawsuit and any future reference to defendants or
“Braun” 	refers 	only 	to 	B. 	Braun 	Medical 	Inc. 	and 	B. 	Braun
Interventional Systems Inc.
14 	R. Doc. 42.
15 	Id.
16 	R. Doc. 43.
17 	See generally id.
Case 2:25-cv-00393-SSV-JVM Document 56 Filed 12/16/25 Page 3 of 7

4
Defendants now bring a partial motion to dismiss the amended
complaint, arguing that the redhibitory defect claim should once again be
dismissed and that Susan McGuire’s loss of consortium claim should be
dismissed. 18 	Plaintiffs once again represent that they are withdrawing the
redhibitory 	defect 	claim, 	averring 	that 	it 	was 	inadvertently 	re-pled. 19
Plaintiffs oppose defendants’ motion as to Susan McGuire’s claim. 20 	The
Court considers the parties’ arguments below.
II. 	LEGAL STANDARD
When a defendant attacks the complaint because it fails to state a
legally cognizable claim, Rule 12(b)(6) provides the appropriate challenge.
To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a plaintiff must plead enough
facts to “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 547 (2007)). 	A claim is facially plausible “when the plaintiff pleads
factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that
the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” 	Id. at 678. 	The Court
must accept all well-pleaded facts as true and must draw all reasonable
18 	R. Doc. 46.
19 	R. Doc. 54.
20 	Id.
Case 2:25-cv-00393-SSV-JVM Document 56 Filed 12/16/25 Page 4 of 7

5
inferences in favor of the plaintiff. Lormand v. U.S. Unwired, Inc., 565 F.3d
228, 239, 244 (5th Cir. 2009). But the Court is not bound to accept as true
legal conclusions couched as factual allegations. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
A legally sufficient complaint must establish more than a “sheer
possibility” that the party’s claim is true. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. It need
not contain “detailed factual allegations,” but it must go beyond “‘labels and
conclusions’ or ‘a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action.’”
See id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). In other words, “[t]he complaint
(1) on its face (2) must contain enough factual matter (taken as true) (3) to
raise a reasonable hope or expectation (4) that discovery will reveal relevant
evidence of each element of a claim.” 	Lormand, 565 F.3d at 257 (citations
omitted). 	The claim must be dismissed if there are insufficient factual
allegations “to raise a right to relief above the speculative level,” Twombly,
550 U.S. at 555, or if it is apparent from the face of the complaint that there
is an insuperable bar to relief, see Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 215 (2007).
III. 	DISCUSSION
A. Redhibitory Defect
Plaintiffs 	previously 	withdrew 	their 	claim 	for 	redhibitory 	defect,
conceding that it is prescribed. 	This constituted a judicial admission.
Case 2:25-cv-00393-SSV-JVM Document 56 Filed 12/16/25 Page 5 of 7

6
Accordingly, this Court dismissed the claim with prejudice. 	Plaintiffs now
aver that the claim was inadvertently included in the amended complaint.
They once again concede that the claim is prescribed and withdraw the claim.
Accordingly, 	the 	Court 	dismisses 	with 	prejudice 	plaintiffs’ 	claim 	for
redhibitory defect.
B. Loss of Consortium
Louisiana law recognizes a cause of action for loss of consortium.
Ferrell v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., 696 So. 2d 569, 573 (La. 1997). 	Such a
claim 	is 	“derivative” 	of 	the 	predicate 	tort 	claim, 	id. 	at 	576, 	and 	the
paradigmatic plaintiff for such a claim is the spouse of the tort claimant, id.
at 573.
Here, plaintiffs allege that Shannon and Susan McGuire are married.
They allege that Shannon McGuire has suffered injuries because of the
device. And they allege that, “as a direct and proximate result of the incident,
and the injuries caused to [Shannon McGuire], Susan McGuire has sustained
loss of consortium, loss of services and loss of society.” 21 	However, the
allegation does not provide any specific facts to show that any loss was
suffered. Susan McGuire’s allegation of loss of consortium, loss of services,
and loss of society is entirely conclusory. 	It contains nothing more than a
21 	R. Doc. 43 at ¶ 93.
Case 2:25-cv-00393-SSV-JVM Document 56 Filed 12/16/25 Page 6 of 7

7
recitation of the cause of action. 	It does not go beyond “labels and
conclusions.” See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).
The claim is thus inadequate as currently pled. 	Plaintiffs seek leave to
amend. The Court grants plaintiffs’ request for leave to amend the complaint
only as to the loss of consortium claim. See Young v. U.S. Postal Serv. ex rel.
Donahoe, 620 F. App’x 241, 245 (5th Cir. 2015) (explaining that leave to
amend should ordinarily be granted).
IV. 	CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants defendants’ motion to
dismiss. 	The Court DISMISSES Susan McGuire’s loss of consortium claim
WITHOUT PREJUDICE and with LEAVE TO AMEND the loss of consortium
claim within the complaint within fourteen days of this order. 	The Court
DISMISSES plaintiffs’ claim for redhibitory defect WITH PREJUDICE.
Plaintiffs shall not replead the claim for redhibitory defect in any amended
complaint.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this _____ day of December, 2025.
_____________________
SARAH S. VANCE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
16th
Case 2:25-cv-00393-SSV-JVM Document 56 Filed 12/16/25 Page 7 of 7