Fresenius USA, Inc. manufactures and distributes equipment and disposable products for the treatment of kidney failure by hemodialysis and by peritoneal dialysis. Fresenius USA, Inc. was formerly known as Delmed, Inc. and changed its name to Fresenius USA, Inc. in December 1991. The company was founded in 1982 and is based in Walnut Creek, California. Fresenius USA, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Fresenius Medical Care AG & Co. KGAA.
2637 Shadelands Drive
Walnut Creek, CA 94598
Founded in 1982
U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation Issues Order Regarding Fresenius GranuFlo/Naturalyte Dialysate Products Liability Litigation
Dec 8 15
U.S. Judicial Panel on multidistrict litigation issues order regarding Fresenius GranuFlo/NaturaLyte Dialysate products liability litigation. Defendants are Fresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc. d/b/a Fresenius 1 Medical Care North America; Fresenius USA, Inc.; Fresenius USA Manufacturing, Inc.; and Fresenius USA Marketing, Inc. (collectively Fresenius) oppose the motion. In her motion to vacate, plaintiff principally argues that transfer should not take place unless and until her motion for remand to state court is decided. The company have held that a motion for remand alone generally is an insufficient basis to vacate a conditional transfer order. Indeed, it has 2 rejected similar arguments in support of motions to vacate conditional transfer orders in this litigation. Transfer Order at 1-2, In re Fresenius GranuFlo/NaturaLyte Dialysate Prods. Liab. Litig., MDL No. 2428 (J.P.M.L. Feb. 5, 2015), ECF No. 1023. Plaintiff can present her motion for remand to the transferee judge. See, e.g., In re Ivy, 901 F.2d 7, 9 (2d Cir. 1990); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. Sales Practices Litig., 170 F. Supp. 2d 1346, 1347-48 (J.P.M.L. 2001). Plaintiff also contends that transfer to the District of Massachusetts will be inconvenient because she and many of the witnesses to decedent's dialysis treatment are located in Oklahoma. The Panel has held repeatedly that, while it might inconvenience some parties, transfer of a particular action often is necessary to further the expeditious resolution of the litigation taken as a whole. The transferee judge is in the best position to structure proceedings so as to minimize inconvenience to any individual party. After considering the argument of counsel, find that Jerry involves common questions of fact with the actions previously transferred to MDL No. 2428, and that transfer under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. In order centralizing this litigation, held that the District of Massachusetts was an appropriate Section 1407 forum for actions sharing factual questions arising out of allegations that plaintiffs suffered injury or death caused by the use of GranuFlo or NaturaLyte during hemodialysis, which allegedly may cause metabolic alkalosis in patients resulting in low blood pressure, hypokalemia, hypoxemia, hypercapnia, cardiac arrhythmia, or cardiopulmonary arrest. See In re Fresenius GranuFlo/NaturaLyte Dialysate Prods. Liab. Litig., 935 F. Supp. 2d 1362 (J.P.M.L. 2013). Jerry involves similar allegations that plaintiff's decedent suffered metabolic alkalosis, cardiac arrhythmia, and death as a result of the use of GranuFlo and/or NaturaLyte during hemodialysis. This action likewise involves factual questions relating to whether these products were defectively designed or manufactured, whether Fresenius, the manufacturer of these dialysate products, knew or should have known of the alleged propensity of these products to cause injury, and whether it provided adequate instructions and warnings with these products.
Fish & Richardson Wins Wrongful Termination and Breach of Contract Suit for Fresenius
Feb 6 15
The law firm of Fish & Richardson has successfully defended its long-term client, Fresenius USA, in a suit filed by Fresenius' former president of research and development, Moshsen Reihanifam. On January 30, a jury ruled for Fresenius in Reihanifam v. Fresenius Medical Care North America, et al., denying Reihanifam the $29 million he sought in damages. Reihanifam's claims included discrimination, harassment, retaliation, wrongful termination and breach of contract. Fresenius argued that all of the claims were baseless. The jury returned the verdict for Fresenius in less than two hours of deliberations.