CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
LESLIE CLABO,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON HEALTH CARE SYSTEMS, INC.; ETHICON ENDO-SURGERY, INC.,
Defendants-Appellees.
   No. 20-5168
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Tennessee at Knoxville.
No. 3:19-cv-00154—Curtis L. Collier, District Judge.
Argued: November 17, 2020
Decided and Filed: December 14, 2020
Before: KETHLEDGE, DONALD, and LARSEN, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

BERNICE BOUIE DONALD, Circuit Judge. Beginning in 2003, Leslie Clabo had several procedures performed to correct certain painful and uncomfortable medical issues. To alleviate her suffering, Clabo was implanted with a TVT transvaginal mesh device that was manufactured by Defendants-Appellees, Johnson & Johnson Health Care Systems, Inc. and Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. (collectively, “the Defendants”). Over time, Clabo was forced to repair and replace the mesh product because it eroded and would intermittently not serve its intended purpose. After Clabo initiated a products liability lawsuit, in which she alleged that the Defendants were liable for her injuries under Tennessee law, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting that Clabo’s claims were time-barred in accordance with Tennessee’s statute of repose. When Clabo subsequently filed a motion to amend her complaint and add new claims related to her injuries, the Defendants argued that her motion was futile because all of her claims were time-barred. The district court ultimately agreed with the Defendants, granted their motion for summary judgment, and denied Clabo’s motion to amend her complaint. On appeal, Clabo’s primary contention is that the district court erred in determining her date of injury. Because the record undoubtedly demonstrates that Clabo’s injuries occurred outside of the applicable statute of repose period, we AFFIRM the district court.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
IN RE: KATHRYN MACEWEN CONTI,
Debtor.
___________________________________________

KATHRYN MACEWEN CONTI,
Appellant,
v.
ARROWOOD INDEMNITY COMPANY,
Appellee.
   No. 20-1172
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit;
No. 2:18-cv-13467—Terrence George Berg, District Judge.
United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit;
2:17-ap-04711; 2:17-bk-48277—Marci B. McIvor, Judge.
Argued: November 18, 2020
Decided and Filed: December 14, 2020
Before: COLE, Chief Judge; DONALD and READLER, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

COLE, Chief Judge. After filing for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, Kathryn MacEwen Conti commenced an adversary proceeding against Arrowood Indemnity Co. seeking to determine that loans she incurred while enrolled at the University of Michigan were not “qualified education loan[s]” under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8)(B) and were thus dischargeable in bankruptcy. The bankruptcy court granted summary judgment to Arrowood, concluding that the plain language of the loan documents demonstrated they were qualified education loans. Because the bankruptcy court’s conclusion was correct, we affirm its summary judgment in favor of Arrowood.