Lilak v. Pfizer Corporation, Inc.

Filing 18

ORDER by Judge Charles R. Breyer denying (17) Motion for Mandamus in case 3:10-cv-04831-CRB ; (32) Motion for Mandamus in case 3:08-cv-5777-CRB. (crblc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/27/2012)

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 MANDAMUS

08-5777 CRB
10-4831 CRB

17
18

On February 3, 2012, this Court denied pro se Plaintiff Safdar Lilak’s document

19

entitled a “Motion for Judicial Review,” in which he asked “the reviewing court to hold

20

unlawful agency action ‘not in accordance with law,’” and asserted that his “personal

21

injuries and wage loss claims has been denied wrongfully, incorrectly and illegally.”

22

See Order (dkt. 30) and Mot. for Judicial Review (dkt. 28) at 2-3. The Court explained in

23

its Order that it could not reinstate Plaintiff’s case. See Order at 1. The Court went on

24

the explain that, to the extent Plaintiff wished to appeal the Court’s dismissal of his case

25

for failure to comply with Pretrial Order No. 31, he should have done so, and to the extent

26

that he wished to move this Court for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil

27

Procedure 60, he had provided no basis for doing so. Id. at 2.

28

Plaintiff has now filed a new document entitled a “Motion for ‘Mandamus
-1-

1

Instruction to Wrong Doer’ to Redress the Injury Compensation for MDL 1699

2

Settlement for Pro Se Plaintiff,” Mot. (dkt. 32), in which he asserts that “[t]he court is

3

hiding behind rules and ignoring the substantive purpose of the case.” Id. at 1. The

4

Motion goes on to argue the merits of Plaintiff’s case. Id. at 1-7.

5

The Court appreciates the importance of this case to Plaintiff, see id. at 11

6

(“Plaintiff . . . has been suffering from last 8-9 years now, living in poverty index of

7

120%-180%, and in future will be suffering, . . . has been permanently injured for life and

8

damaged career . . .”). Nonetheless, the Court is not hiding behind rules; it is bound by

9

them. The Court cannot adjudicate the merits of Plaintiff’s case, which was dismissed in

10

April 2010. See Order Granting MTD (dkt. 16). Accordingly, for the same reasons the

11

Motion for Judicial Review was denied, the present Motion is as well.

12
13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 27, 2012
HONORABLE CHARLES R. BREYER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-12