Woods v. Wyeth LLC et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER re 204 Motion for Leave of Court to Amend Complaint against the Generic Defendants- For the reasons listed within, the court DENIES the Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint. Signed by Chief Judge Karon O Bowdre on 6/6/16. (SAC )
2016 Jun-06 AM 11:50
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
WYETH, LLC, et al.,
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER
This matter is before the court on the Plaintiff’s “Motion for Leave of Court to Amend
Complaint against the Generic Defendants.” (Doc. 204).
The court recently dismissed all of the generic defendants from this suit, finding that
Plaintiff Linda Woods’s claims against them were either preempted by federal law or were
insufficiently pled. (Docs. 200 & 201). In light of that dismissal, Woods now asks the court for
permission to amend her Complaint so that she may correct her pleading deficiencies.
In considering whether to grant a motion for leave to amend a complaint, the court may
consider factors such as “undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant,
repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the
opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, futility of amendment, etc. . . . .”
Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962).
In reviewing these factors, the court finds that Plaintiff’s Motion is due to be DENIED for
the following reasons.
First, Plaintiff’s proposed amendment is untimely. In its Scheduling Order, the court set
the deadline for amending pleadings as May 1, 2015. The court allowed the Plaintiff to amend
her Complaint once during this time period, after she obtained new counsel.
Second, Plaintiff’s proposed amendment would be unduly prejudicial to the generic
defendants. The generic defendants have already fully briefed their Motions for Judgment on the
Pleadings based on the Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, and the court has ruled on those
Motions, finding in the generic defendants’ favor and dismissing them from this suit. Allowing
Plaintiff to amend her Complaint and to reassert her claims against the generic defendants at this
point would cause the generic defendants undue prejudice.
Third, Plaintiff’s proposed amendment is futile. Plaintiff requests leave of court to more
specifically address the causation issues against the generic defendants; however, the court finds
that, even with the proposed additions, Plaintiff’s proposed Amended Complaint is deficient.
The Plaintiff’s proposed Amended Complaint includes new allegations regarding her
doctor’s references to the generic drug metoclopramide. However, Plaintiff still alleges in her
proposed Amended Complaint that her “prescriptions were written for ‘Reglan’, i.e., the name of
the brand name product.” (Doc. 204-2, ¶ 66). Thus, Plaintiff still fails to allege facts sufficient to
show that the generic defendants’ actions proximately caused her injuries.
Further, the Plaintiff’s proposed Amended Complaint continues to be deficient in other
respects. The Plaintiff’s proposed Amended Complaint still contains many of the same counts
and allegations that the court has already found to be deficient, such as the Plaintiff’s fraud claim,
Plaintiff’s allegations regarding the generic defendants’ failure to send “Dear Doctor” letters, and
Plaintiff’s claims against generic defendant Teva, which Plaintiff has admitted are due to be
dismissed (see doc. 193, at 2). Allowing the Plaintiff to amend her Complaint would require the
court to revisit the same issues it has already ruled on, further prejudicing the generic defendnats
who have already successfully addressed those very same counts.
Therefore, the court DENIES the Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend her Complaint.
DONE and ORDERED this 6th day of June, 2016.
KARON OWEN BOWDRE
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?