Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Owen v. Dr. Reddy's Laboratories

United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Asheville Division

March 29, 2018

TED J. OWEN, Plaintiff,
v.
DR. REDDY'S LABORATORIES, Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER

          Martin Reidinger, Jr., United States District Judge

         THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration [Doc. 27].

         I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

         The Plaintiff commenced this action on December 29, 2016, by filing a Complaint in the General Court of Justice, Superior Court Division, for Transylvania County, North Carolina. In his Complaint, the Plaintiff asserts claims of products liability and negligence against the Defendant Dr. Reddy's Laboratories based on injuries he allegedly suffered after using the Defendant's pharmaceutical product. [Doc. 1 at 11-15].

         This case was removed to this Court on February 1, 2017. [Doc. 1]. On March 1, 2017, the Defendant filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. [Doc. 10]. In its Motion, the Defendant argued that the Plaintiff's Complaint failed to state a claim for relief and that the Plaintiff's claim involving generic pharmaceutical products is preempted by federal law. [Id.]. The Plaintiff opposed that motion. [Doc. 13].

         On December 13, 2017, the Honorable Dennis L. Howell, United States Magistrate Judge, issued a Memorandum and Recommendation recommending that the Defendant's Motion should be granted and that the Plaintiff's Complaint should be dismissed. [Doc. 19]. On December 27, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a pleading seeking leave to file an amended complaint and referencing a death in his family. [Doc. 20]. On January 8, 2018, this Court denied the Plaintiff's request to amend his Complaint but granted the Plaintiff until January 26, 2018, to file objections to the Memorandum and Recommendation. [Doc. 22].

         On January 12, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a pleading entitled “Addendum Defective Product Liability Claim.” [Doc. 23]. The Court order this pleading to be stricken on January 22, 2018, because it appeared to be an attempt to amend the Complaint in direct contravention of the Court's prior Order. [Doc. 24]. The Plaintiff took no further action that was allowed by the Court within the extension of time the Plaintiff had been granted. Thus, the Plaintiff lodged no objection to the Memorandum and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. Therefore, on February 2, 2018, the Court accepted Judge Howell's Memorandum and Recommendation and dismissed this case with prejudice. [Doc. 25]. On March 5, 2018, the Plaintiff filed the present Motion for Reconsideration. [Doc. 27].

         II. ANALYSIS

         Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows the Court “[o]n motion and just terms [to] relieve a party or [his] legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding” for any of the following reasons:

(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b);
(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party;
(4) the judgment is void;
(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.