Trammel v. Sanofi S.A. LLC et al

Filing 31

Order by Judge Vince Chhabria granting 30 Motion for Leave to File Late Reply and denying 28 Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint. (vclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/8/2024)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA LINDA TRAMMEL, Case No. 23-cv-06001-VC Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT v. SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S LLC, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 28 Defendants. Trammel’s motion for leave to amend her complaint is denied. Trammel also seeks leave to file a late reply brief, which is granted. Trammel wishes to amend the definition of her injury and add allegations of fraudulent concealment, but the MDL court previously rejected similar efforts to amend the Master Complaint in 2019. Despite acknowledging the MDL court’s prior ruling, Trammel does not offer any argument as to why that ruling was erroneous or resulted in a manifest injustice. Because the MDL order is the law of the case, it will not be disturbed absent extraordinary circumstances. See Christianson v. Colt Industries Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800, 817 (1988); White v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., No. CIV. 2:06-665 WBS GG, 2010 WL 3448589, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 1, 2010). Trammel’s request to amend also comes too late. After denying leave to amend the Master Complaint, the MDL court issued Pretrial Order No. 105, granting plaintiffs the ability to amend their short form complaints to include “allegations regarding particularized facts individual and specific to each Plaintiff’s medical care and treatment and/or that Plaintiff’s communications with medical professionals.” The deadline for adding such allegations was January 2021 and Trammel has provided no reasonable explanation for why she did not file an amended short form complaint by that deadline. Trammel contends that the “short form complaint employed in the MDL did not enumerate sections where plaintiff specific facts were appropriate.” But the MDL court explicitly allowed plaintiffs to include individualized facts and Trammel offers no evidence that she attempted to do so and was hindered because of the short form complaint’s formatting. Although undue delay and the law of the case doctrine are sufficient to deny Trammel’s motion, she also failed to include a proposed amended complaint with her motion as required by Local Rule 10-1. Trammel eventually filed a proposed amended complaint with her motion to file a late reply brief but at that point Sanofi had no opportunity to respond. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: July 8, 2024 ______________________________________ VINCE CHHABRIA United States District Judge 2

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?