Lilak v. Pfizer Corporation, Inc.

Filing 15

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW. Signed by Judge Charles R. Breyer on 2/3/2012. (crblc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/3/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

11

13
14

CASE NO. MDL No. 1699

IN RE BEXTRA AND CELEBREX
MARKETING, SALES PRACTICE,
AND PRODUCT LIABILITY
LITIGATION
This Document Relates to:

12

15
16

Lilak, Safdar Neil

ORDER DENYING MOTION
FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW

08-5777 CRB
10-4831 CRB

17
18

Pro se Plaintiff Safdar Lilak has filed a document entitled a “Motion for Judicial

19

Review,” in which he asks “the reviewing court to hold unlawful agency action ‘not in

20

accordance with law,’” and asserts that his “personal injuries and wage loss claims has

21

been denied wrongfully, incorrectly and illegally.” See dkt. 28 at 2-3. The Motion seems

22

to argue that Plaintiff’s case has merit, that Defendant Pfizer should be held liable for

23

Plaintiff’s harm, and that Plaintiff’s case should be “reinstated.” See, e.g., id. at 8 (“The

24

PFIZER is liable and should face its liability(s)/responsibility(s) to the situation rather

25

than [instead] using SCIENTER rules, Malicious Litigation Bad Faith and Wonton

26

conduct to minimize compensation for victim and his Claims for Wage loss in settlement

27

process should face the responsibility.”).

28

The Court cannot reinstate Plaintiff’s case. To the extent Plaintiff wished to
1

1

appeal the Court’s dismissal of his case for failure to comply with Pretrial Order No. 31,

2

he should have done so pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4. No appeal

3

seems to have been filed. To the extent that Plaintiff wished to move this Court for relief

4

from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60, he has provided the Court with

5

no basis for doing so. Moreover, a motion based on Rule 60(b)(1)-(3) must be brought

6

within one year; Plaintiff’s Motion comes well over a year after his case was dismissed.

7

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED.

8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED
Dated: February 3, 2012
HONORABLE CHARLES R. BREYER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2