Motion for Court Reporter or Interpreter in MAICKOLL PAPASTRAVO VS C.R. BARD, INC ET AL| Trellis.Law

On June 11, 2021 a Party Notice was filed involving a dispute between Papastravo, Maickoll, and Becton Dickinson And Company, C.R. Bard, Inc, Davol, Inc, for Product Liability in the District Court of Miami-Dade County.

Preview
Filing # 132766585 E-Filed 08/16/2021 03:41:38 PM

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR MIAMI-
DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA

MAICKOLL PAPASTAVROS,

Plaintiff, Case No.: 2021-013661-CA-01

C.R. BARD, INC., a Foreign Profit
Corporation, DAVOL, INC., a Foreign
Profit Corporation, and BECTON
DICKINSON AND COMPANY, a Foreign
Profit Corporation,

Defendants.
___________________________________/

NOTICE OF FILING NOTICE OF REMOVAL TO THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Defendants C. R. Bard, Inc., Davol, Inc., and Becton, Dickinson and Company

(collectively, “Defendants”) hereby give notice that on August 16, 2021, Defendants filed a Notice

of Removal in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Miami Division,

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441, and 1446. A copy of said Notice of Removal is attached

hereto as Exhibit “A.”
Dated: August 16, 2021 Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ Sabrina R. Gallo
Sabrina R. Gallo
Florida Bar No.: 419273
Email: gallos@gtlaw.com
Alexandra B. Lagos
Florida Bar No.: 30035
Email: lagosa@gtlaw.com
Kaley R. Jaslow
Florida Bar No. 1018086
Email: jaslowk@gtlaw.com
GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A.
333 S.E. 2nd Avenue, 44th Floor
Miami, Florida 33131
Tel.: (305) 579-0500
Fax: (305) 579-0717

Counsel for Defendants C. R. Bard, Inc.,
Davol, Inc., and Becton, Dickinson and
Company

2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on August 16, 2021, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Florida

Courts E-Filing Portal. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day on the

counsel of record via electronic mail.

/s/ Sabrina R. Gallo
SABRINA R. GALLO

SERVICE LIST

Judd G. Rosen
E-mail: pleadings@goldbergandrosen.com
E-mail: bmrsecy@goldbergandrosen.com
Brett M. Rosen
E-mail: brett@goldbergandrosen.com
Mustafa H. Dandashly
E-mail: mdandashly@goldbergandrosen.com
GOLDBERG & ROSEN, P.A.
One Biscayne Tower
2 South Biscayne Boulevard #3650
Miami, Florida 33131
Tel:(305) 374-4200
Fax:(305) 374-8024

3
EXHIBIT
“A”
Case 1:21-cv-22966-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2021 Page 1 of 9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
MIAMI DIVISION

CASE NO. _____________

MAICKOLL PAPASTAVROS,

Plaintiff,

C.R. BARD, INC., a Foreign Profit
Corporation, DAVOL, INC., a Foreign Profit
Corporation, and BECTON DICKINSON
AND COMPANY, a Foreign Profit
Corporation,

Defendants.

DEFENDANTS C. R. BARD, INC., DAVOL, INC., AND BECTON, DICKINSON AND
COMPANY’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441, and 1446,

Defendants C. R. Bard, Inc. (“Bard”), Davol, Inc. (“Davol”), and Becton, Dickinson and Company

(“BD”) (collectively, “Defendants”) hereby remove this action, Maickoll Papastavros v. C.R.

Bard, Inc., Davol, Inc., and Becton Dickinson and Company, Case No. 2021-013661-CA-01, from

the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, to the

United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Miami Division. In support of

this Notice of Removal, Defendants state as follows:

INTRODUCTION

1. The removed case is a civil action filed on June 11, 2021 in the Eleventh Judicial

Circuit, in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, and captioned Maickoll Papastavros v. C.R. Bard,

Inc., Davol, Inc., and Becton Dickinson and Company, Case No. 2021-013661-CA-01. Plaintiff

Maickoll Papastavros (“Plaintiff”) filed the Amended Complaint for Damages on July 1, 2021 (the
Case 1:21-cv-22966-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2021 Page 2 of 9

“Amended Complaint”). Defendants were served, through their registered agent, on July 26, 2021.

A true and correct copy of the Amended Complaint is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

2. This medical device product liability action arises out of injuries allegedly sustained

by Plaintiff in connection with the design, development, manufacture, marketing, and distribution

of a Bard Davol Hydroflex Multi-application Arthroscopy Irrigation Pump used on Plaintiff during

a knee arthroscopy surgery. Ex. A, Am. Compl. ¶¶ 10, 12-14, 20.

3. The Amended Complaint asserts causes of action for Strict Products Liability

(Count I) and Negligence and Negligent design and Manufacturing (Count II).

4. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages resulting from the alleged “bodily injury and

resulting pain and suffering, disability, disfigurement, mental anguish, loss of capacity for the

enjoyment of life, expenses of hospitalization, medical and nursing care and treatment, aggravation

or acceleration of pre-existing injury, loss of earnings and loss of ability to earn money,” as well

as “costs of this action and all other further equitable and legal relief as this Court may deem

appropriate.” Id. ¶¶ 35, 43.

5. Defendants deny that they are liable to Plaintiffs under any theory and deny that

any alleged act or omission caused or contributed to Plaintiff’s alleged damages.

6. Removal of this action is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1441 because this Court

has original jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. There is complete diversity of

citizenship between the parties, and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of

interest and costs.

VENUE AND JURISDICTION

7. Venue is proper in the Miami Division of the United States District Court for the

Southern District of Florida because the Court from which this action is removed, the Eleventh

2
Case 1:21-cv-22966-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2021 Page 3 of 9

Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, is within the Southern District of Florida.

Ex. A, Am. Compl. ¶ 9. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441(a) and 1446(a).

8. Federal courts have original jurisdiction over “all civil actions where the matter in

controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between . . . citizens of

different States” and in actions between “citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign

state […]” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1), (2).

9. This Court has original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because there is

complete diversity of citizenship between Plaintiff and Defendants, and the amount-in-controversy

exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs.

10. In addition, all other requirements for removal are satisfied, as explained below.

BASIS FOR REMOVAL

I. REMOVAL IS PROPER UNDER 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441, et seq., BECAUSE THIS
COURT HAS SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1332

A. Complete Diversity of Citizenship Exists

11. Plaintiff is a citizen of Florida. In the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges he was

a resident of Miami-Dade County, Florida at all times material hereto. Ex. A., Am. Compl. ¶ 2.

See Molinos Valle Del Cibao, C. por A. v. Lama, 633 F.3d 1330, 1341 (11th Cir. 2011) (“For

adults, domicile is established by physical presence in a place in connection with a certain state of

mind concerning one’s intent to remain there.”) (quotation omitted).

12. Bard is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of New Jersey with its

principal place of business in New Jersey. Bard is a citizen of New Jersey for diversity purposes.

13. Davol is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Delaware with its

principal place of business in Rhode Island. Davol is a citizen of both Delaware and Rhode Island

for diversity purposes.

3
Case 1:21-cv-22966-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2021 Page 4 of 9

14. BD is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of New Jersey with its

principal place of business in New Jersey. BD is a citizen of New Jersey for diversity purposes.

15. Accordingly, this action is between “citizens of different States.” 28 U.S.C. §

1332(a)(1)-(2). Plaintiff is, as alleged in the Amended Complaint, a citizen of the State of Florida

and Defendants are citizens of the States of New Jersey, Delaware, and Rhode Island. Because no

defendant is a citizen of the State of Florida, removal of this action is proper under 28 U.S.C. §

1441(b)(2).

B. The Amount-In-Controversy Requirement Is Met

16. This Court has “original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in

controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between

. . . citizens of different States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). “[A] defendant’s notice of removal need

include only a plausible allegation that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional

threshold.” Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81, 89 (2014). “[W]hen

a defendant seeks federal-court adjudication, the defendant’s amount-in-controversy allegation

should be accepted when not contested by the plaintiff or questioned by the court.” Id. at 87.

Furthermore, when the exact amount of damages is unspecified by the plaintiff, the defendant need

only needs to show that the amount-in-controversy requirement has been satisfied by a

preponderance of the evidence. Roe v. Michelin N.A., Inc., 613 F.3d 1058, 1061-62 (11th Cir.

2010).

17. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint alleges damages “in excess of thirty thousand

dollars ($30,000.00),” see Ex. A., Am. Compl. ¶ 1—the jurisdictional minimum in the district in

which the state court action is pending—but does not otherwise specify the amount of alleged

damages. Even absent such allegations, the amount-in-controversy requirement is satisfied if it is

4
Case 1:21-cv-22966-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2021 Page 5 of 9

“facially apparent” from the Amended Complaint that it exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interests

and costs. See Roe, 613 F.3d at 1061 (“If a defendant alleges that removability is apparent from

the face of the complaint, the district court must evaluate whether the complaint itself satisfies the

defendant’s jurisdictional burden.”); Williams v. Best Buy Co., 269 F.3d 1316, 1319 (11th Cir.

2001) (holding that district court may consider whether jurisdictional amount is “facially apparent”

from the complaint). A court may also consider the removal notice and post-removal evidence

concerning the amount in controversy. See Williams, 269 F.3d at 1319; see also Pretka v. Kolter

City Plaza II, Inc., 608 F.3d 744, 768 (11th Cir. 2010) (holding that “the evidence the defendant

may use to establish the jurisdictional facts is not limited to that which it received from the plaintiff

or the court”). “Eleventh Circuit precedent permits district courts to make reasonable deductions,

reasonable inferences, or other reasonable extrapolations from the pleadings to determine whether

it is facially apparent that a case is removable.” Roe, 613 F.3d at 1061-62 (internal quotation marks

omitted).

18. Here, Plaintiff seeks to recover damages resulting from the alleged “bodily injury

and resulting pain and suffering, disability, disfigurement, mental anguish, loss of capacity for the

enjoyment of life, expenses of hospitalization, medical and nursing care and treatment, aggravation

or acceleration of pre-existing injury, loss of earnings and loss of ability to earn money,” as well

as “costs of this action and all other further equitable and legal relief as this Court may deem

appropriate.” Ex. A., Am. Compl. ¶¶ 35, 43. These allegations clearly implicate an amount in

controversy exceeding $75,000.

II. ALL OTHER REMOVAL REQUIREMENTS ARE SATISFIED

A. The Notice of Removal Is Timely

5
Case 1:21-cv-22966-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2021 Page 6 of 9

19. This Notice of Removal is timely filed. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1) requires the Notice

of Removal to be filed within thirty days of receipt by Defendants, “through service or otherwise,”

of a copy of the Amended Complaint. In Murphy Brothers., Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc.,

the United States Supreme Court held that this thirty-day period is triggered upon “simultaneous

service of the summons and complaint.” 526 U.S. 344, 347-48 (1999).

20. Defendants were simultaneously served with the summons and Plaintiff’s

Amended Complaint on July 26, 2021. See Exhibits C, D and E, Service for BD, Bard, and

Davol, respectively.

21. This Notice of Removal is filed on August 16, 2021, and thus meets the timeliness

requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1).

B. Notice Will Be Provided to the State Court and Plaintiff

22. Promptly after filing this Notice of Removal, Defendants will furnish written notice

to Plaintiff’s counsel and file a copy of this Notice of Removal with the Clerk of the Circuit Court

of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, to effect removal of this

action to the United States District Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d). See Notice of Filing

Notice of Removal, attached as Exhibit F hereto.

23. By filing this Notice of Removal, Defendants do not waive any defenses available

to them and expressly reserve all such defenses.

24. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a), Defendants attach to this Notice of Removal a

copy of the state court file, including all process, pleadings and other papers of every kind. See

Exhibit B, attached hereto.

C. Defendants Consent to Removal

6
Case 1:21-cv-22966-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2021 Page 7 of 9

25. For purposes of removal based on diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)

and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(2)(A), all defendants who have been properly joined and

served must consent to removal.

26. Defendants Bard, Davol, and BD, the only three defendants named in this action,

consent to removal, as indicated by the signature block below.

27. Promptly after filing this Notice of Removal, Defendants will file the Notice of

Consent to Removal, attached hereto as Exhibit G, merely to reconfirm that all defendants join in

and consent to removal as reflected in this Notice of Removal.

WHEREFORE, Defendants hereby remove the above-captioned matter, now pending

against itin the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, in and for Miami-Dade County,

Florida, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

7
Case 1:21-cv-22966-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2021 Page 8 of 9

Dated: August 16, 2021 Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ Sabrina R. Gallo
Sabrina R. Gallo
Florida Bar No.: 419273
Email: gallos@gtlaw.com
Alexandra B. Lagos
Florida Bar No.:30035
Email: lagosa@gtlaw.com
Kaley R. Jaslow
Florida Bar No. 1018086
Email: jaslowk@gtlaw.com
GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A.
333 S.E. 2nd Avenue, 44th Floor
Miami, Florida 33131
Tel.: (305) 579-0500
Fax: (305) 579-0717

Counsel for Defendants C. R. Bard, Inc.,
Davol, Inc., and Becton, Dickinson and
Company

8
Case 1:21-cv-22966-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2021 Page 9 of 9

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on August 16, 2021, I electronically filed the foregoing

document using CM/ECF, and it is being served this day on all counsel of record on the attached

service list via Notice of Electronic Filing.

/s/ Sabrina R. Gallo
SABRINA R. GALLO

SERVICE LIST

9
Case 1:21-cv-22966-XXXX Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2021 Page 1 of 9

EXHIBIT
“A”
Filing Case 1:21-cv-22966-XXXX
# 129922337 E-Filed 07/01/2021 Document 1-1
02:36:19Entered
PM on FLSD Docket 08/16/2021 Page 2 of 9

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 11TH
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR
MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA

MAICKOLL PAPASTAVROS, GENERAL JURISDICTION
CASE NO:
Plaintiff,

vs.

C.R. BARD, INC., a
Foreign Profit Corporation,
DAVOL, INC., a Foreign Profit
Corporation, and BECTON
DICKINSON AND COMPANY,
a Foreign Profit Corporation.

Defendants.
_________________________________________/

AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

COMES NOW, Plaintiff, MAICKOLL PAPASTAVROS (hereinafter referred to as

“PAPASTAVROS”), by and through his undersigned attorney, files this lawsuit against the

Defendants, C.R. BARD, INC. (hereinafter referred to as “BARD”), a Foreign Profit Corporation,

DAVOL, INC. (hereinafter referred to as “DAVOL”), a Foreign Profit Corporation, and BECTON

DICKINSON AND COMPANY (hereinafter referred to as “BECTON”), a Foreign Profit

Corporation, and states as follows:

PARTIES, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE

1. This is an action for damages in excess of thirty thousand dollars ($30,000.00) and

otherwise within the jurisdiction of this court.

2. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff was a resident of Miami-Dade County Florida,

over the age of eighteen (18) years, and otherwise sui juris.
Case 1:21-cv-22966-XXXX Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2021 Page 3 of 9

3. At all times material hereto, all incidents described in this Complaint occurred in

Broward County Florida.

4. Defendant, BARD, is a foreign profit corporation limited liability company with its

principal place of business at 1 Becton Drive, Franklin Lakes, NJ 07417. BARD designs, develops,

manufactures, markets, and distributes Bard Davol Hydroflex Multi-application Arthroscopy

Irrigation Pump across the United States, including in Broward and Dade Counties, Florida.

5. Defendant, DAVOL, is a foreign profit corporation limited liability company with

its principal place of business at 100 Crossings Boulevard, Warwick, RI 02886. DAVOL designs,

develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes Bard Davol Hydroflex Multi-application

Arthroscopy Irrigation Pump across the United States, including in Broward and Dade Counties,

Florida.

6. Defendant, BECTON, is a foreign profit corporation limited liability company with

its principal place of business at 1 Becton Drive, Franklin Lakes, NJ 07417. BECTON designs,

develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes Bard Davol Hydroflex Multi-application

Arthroscopy Irrigation Pump across the United States, including in Broward and Dade Counties,

Florida.

7. At all relevant times, Defendants have had continuous and systematic contacts with

the State of Florida by delivering their products into the stream of commerce with the expectation

that the products would reach consumers within the State of Florida.

8. The Court has jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter of this lawsuit.

9. Venue is proper in Miami Dade County, Florida.
Case 1:21-cv-22966-XXXX Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2021 Page 4 of 9

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

10. On July 18, 2019, Plaintiff, PAPASTAVROS, had a knee arthroscopy surgery

using a Bard Davol Hydroflex Multi-application Arthroscopy Irrigation Pump, which was

designed, developed, manufactured, marketed and distributed by Defendants.

11. Plaintiff did not tamper with the pump and the pump was used as intended.

12. During ordinary, expected and normal use of the arthroscopy pump, the pump

malfunctioned and was producing a pressure much higher than the set pressure displayed on the

screen; causing PAPASTRAVO’s thigh to be engorged, tense and swollen.

13. As a result of the arthroscopy pump’s defect, PAPASTAVROS suffered anterior

compartment syndrome of the thigh, requiring emergency surgery, an anterior fasciotomy.

14. As a result of this incident, PAPASTAVROS sustained severe and permanent

injuries.

15. Bard Davol Hydroflex Multi-application Arthroscopy Irrigation Pump is pressure

gauge, irrigation system that is specifically made for irrigating and pressurizing a body cavity

during a procedure, such as an arthroscopy. The pump develops a flow and is controlled by a

pressure regulator that regulates the pressure of air applied to the pump.

16. The Defendants were negligent in one or more of the following ways:

a. by designing, manufacturing, distributing, and selling Bard Davol Hydroflex Multi-
application Arthroscopy Irrigation Pump that was unsafe for their intended
purposes under foreseeable circumstances;
b. by negligently causing to be placed in the stream of commerce, Bard Davol Hydroflex
Multi-application Arthroscopy Irrigation Pump that contain significant known hazards
when they was used as they was intended;
c. by negligently and carelessly failing to reasonably inspect and test the Bard Davol
Hydroflex Multi-application Arthroscopy Irrigation Pump to discover defects in them;
d. by negligently and carelessly failing to warn users of these Bard Davol Hydroflex Multi-
application Arthroscopy Irrigation Pump’ defective and unreasonably dangerous condition
when they was aware that such Bard Davol Hydroflex Multi-application Arthroscopy
Irrigation Pump constituted a significant safety hazard;
Case 1:21-cv-22966-XXXX Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2021 Page 5 of 9

e. by negligently and carelessly advertising and marketing these Bard Davol Hydroflex Multi-
application Arthroscopy Irrigation Pump as a safe;
f. by negligently and carelessly failing to comply with applicable Consumer Product Safety
Commission Standards; and
g. by negligently failing to notify consumers, as required by law, that a defect exists in these
Bard Davol Hydroflex Multi-application Arthroscopy Irrigation Pump that relates to public
safety.
h. negligently failing to provide adequate warnings and instructions of the dangers of using
these Bard Davol Hydroflex Multi-application Arthroscopy Irrigation Pump to all
foreseeable users including the Plaintiff.

17. In the United States, Bard Davol Hydroflex Multi-application Arthroscopy

Irrigation Pumps was sold and distributed to medical facilities, and intended to be used in medical

procedures.

18. The Defendants marketed Bard Davol Hydroflex Multi-application Arthroscopy

Irrigation Pump as a product safe for use by doctors/ surgeons in medical procedures. Contrary to

the Defendants’ representations, Bard Davol Hydroflex Multi-application Arthroscopy Irrigation

Pump was laden with defects and thereafter marketed and sold to the public without adequate

inspection or quality control measures.

19. Defendants negligently distributed the Bard Davol Hydroflex Multi-application

Arthroscopy Irrigation Pumps.

20. As a result of the Defendants’ negligence, PAPASTAVROS suffered severe and

permanent injuries and damages.

COUNT I

Strict Products Liability Against All Defendants

21. Plaintiff realleges the foregoing paragraphs 1-20

22. The Bard Davol Hydroflex Multi-application Arthroscopy Irrigation Pump at issue

was designed, manufactured, constructed, marketed and/or distributed by and through the agents

and/or representatives of the Defendants.
Case 1:21-cv-22966-XXXX Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2021 Page 6 of 9

23. The Bard Davol Hydroflex Multi-application Arthroscopy Irrigation Pump was

then distributed, sold and/or provided to Defendants with understanding and intent that the

Defendants would distribute product to the public.

24. The Defendants were regularly engaged in the business of supplying or placing

Bard Davol Hydroflex Multi-application Arthroscopy Irrigation Pump in the stream of commerce

for use by the consuming public, and such conduct was for commercial purposes.

25. The Bard Davol Hydroflex Multi-application Arthroscopy Irrigation Pump in

question remained unchanged from the time it was manufactured, distributed, and sold by the

Defendants until it reached the Plaintiff and ultimately led to PAPASTAVROS’s severe and

permanent injuries.

26. At the time the product in question was placed into the stream of commerce, it was

or should have been reasonably expected and foreseeable that the product would be used in the

manner and application in which it was being used at the time of PAPASTAVROS’s injury.

27. More specifically, it was foreseeable to the Defendants that incidents, such as those

involved in this case, occur and would take place during the normal and ordinary use of said Bard

Davol Hydroflex Multi-application Arthroscopy Irrigation Pump.

28. There was safer, albeit more expensive, processes available for the manufacturing

of Bard Davol Hydroflex Multi-application Arthroscopy Irrigation Pump. The alternative design

would have prevented or significantly reduced the risk of injury to PAPASTAVROS. Further,

such safer alternative design was economically and technologically feasible at the time the product

left the control of the Defendants.

29. At the time the Bard Davol Hydroflex Multi-application Arthroscopy Irrigation

Pump left the Defendants’ control, it was defective and unreasonably dangerous because they was
Case 1:21-cv-22966-XXXX Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2021 Page 7 of 9

not adequately designed, manufactured, tested or marketed to minimize the risk of injury. By way

of example and without limitation, the product was unreasonably dangerous and defective due to

the incorporation of harmful components and cheap plastic materials.

30. The Defendants are strictly liable for the injuries and damages caused by the use of

the defective and unreasonably dangerous product.

31. The Defendants had a duty to test the product before placing itin the stream of

commerce and eventually in the hands of the public.

32. The Defendants were grossly negligent, reckless and careless in failing to test the

Bard Davol Hydroflex Multi-application Arthroscopy Irrigation Pump for safety prior to placing

them into the stream of commerce.

33. The Defendants failed to adequately inform consumers that the product contained

hazardous materials.

34. The Defendants’ actions and inactions were the producing and proximate cause of

PAPASTAVROS’s severe and permanent injuries and damages.

35. As a direct result of the Defendants’ negligence, Plaintiff, PAPASTAVROS,

suffered permanent losses, including but not limited to, bodily injury and resulting pain and

suffering, disability, disfigurement, mental anguish, loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life,

expenses of hospitalization, medical and nursing care and treatment, aggravation or acceleration

of pre-existing injury, loss of earnings and loss of ability to earn money. These losses are either

permanent or continuing in nature and the Plaintiff will suffer these losses in the future.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff demands judgment against the Defendants for damages,

costs of this action and all other further equitable and legal relief as this Court may deem

appropriate, and demand a jury trial on all issues so triable.
Case 1:21-cv-22966-XXXX Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2021 Page 8 of 9

COUNT II

Negligence and Negligent Design and Manufacturing Against the All Defendants

36. Plaintiff realleges the foregoing paragraphs 1-20

37. The Defendants have a duty to manufacture, distribute, and sell products that are

not reasonably dangerous.

38. The Defendants breached this duty and were thereby negligent, careless, and

reckless in designing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and selling Bard Davol Hydroflex

Multi-application Arthroscopy Irrigation Pump.

39. The Defendants acted unreasonably at the time of design or manufacture in light

of the foreseeable risk of injury from use of the product.

40. Each Defendant acted unreasonably and negligently when it distributed the

product with a foreseeable risk of injury.

41. As a proximate result of the negligent acts or omissions of each Defendant,

PAPASTAVROS was severely and permanently injured.

42. It was foreseeable to the Defendants that if it designed, manufactured, distributed,

and sold defective and unreasonably dangerous products, users of such products would be

subjected to significant risk of severe personal injury or death. Each Defendant breached its duty

of care and was negligent in, at least, the following acts and omissions:

a. by designing, manufacturing, distributing, and selling products that were unsafe
for their intended purposes under foreseeable circumstances;
b. by negligently causing to be placed in the stream of commerce, products that
contain significant known hazards when they were used as they were intended;
c. by negligently and carelessly failing to reasonably inspect and test the products
to discover defects in them;
d. by negligently and carelessly failing to warn users of these products of their
defective and unreasonably dangerous condition when they were aware that
such products constituted a significant safety hazard;
Case 1:21-cv-22966-XXXX Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2021 Page 9 of 9

e. by negligently failing to notify consumers, as required by law, that a defect
exists in their product that relates to public safety.
f. failing to use reasonable care under the circumstances

43. As a direct result of the Defendants’ negligence, Plaintiff, PAPASTAVROS,

suffered permanent losses, including but not limited to, bodily injury and resulting pain and

suffering, disability, disfigurement, mental anguish, loss of capacity for the enjoyment of life,

expenses of hospitalization, medical and nursing care and treatment, aggravation or acceleration

of pre-existing injury, loss of earnings and loss of ability to earn money. These losses are either

permanent or continuing in nature and the Plaintiff will suffer these losses in the future.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff demands judgment against the Defendants for damages,

costs of this action and all other further equitable and legal relief as this Court may deem

appropriate, and demand a jury trial on all issues so triable.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

The Plaintiff, MAICKOLL PAPASTAVROS, in the above-styled action, hereby demands a

trial by jury on all of the issues so triable.

DATED this 1st day of July 2021.

GOLDBERG & ROSEN, P.A.
Counsel for Plaintiff
One Biscayne Tower
2 South Biscayne Boulevard #3650
Miami, Florida 33131
Tel:(305) 374-4200
Fax:(305) 374-8024

BY__/s/ Mustafa Dandashly
Judd G. Rosen, Esq., Fla. Bar No. 0458953
Brett M. Rosen, Esq., Florida Bar No.: 0044859
Mustafa H. Dandashly, Esq., Florida Bar No.: 118159
Primary E-mail: pleadings@goldbergandrosen.com
Secondary E-mails: mdandashly@goldbergandrosen.com
Case 1:21-cv-22966-XXXX Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2021 Page 1 of 4

EXHIBIT
“B”
Case 1:21-cv-22966-XXXX Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2021 Page 2 of 4
MIAMI-DADE COUNTY CLERK OF THE COURTS
HARVEY RUVIN

CIVIL, FAMILY AND PROBATE COURTS ONLINE SYSTEM

BACK
£BACK


MAICKOLL PAPASTRAVO VS C.R. BARD, INC ET AL

Local Case Number:2021-013661-CA-01 Filing Date:

Case Info

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

August 16, 2021

Case Filing Date

June 11, 2021

County

Parties

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Party Notice: MAICKOLL PAPASTRAVO VS C.R. BARD, INC ET AL

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties