Chambers v. Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al

Filing 41

ORDER adopting 37 Report and Recommendation and granting 34 Motion to Dismiss. The complaint is dismissed without prejudice. Signed by Judge John A. Houston on 11/16/2018. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(jpp)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ANTOINE L. CHAMBERS,

Case No.: 16cv762 JAH-BLM

Plaintiff,

12
13

v.

14

16

JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,
JANSSEN LP, JOHNSON & JOHNSON
& JOHNSON RESEARCH AND
DEVELOPMENT, LLC, AND DOES 1-5

17

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION AND
GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
TO DISMISS [DOC. NO. 34]

Defendants.

15

18
19

BACKGROUND

20

Plaintiff, Antoine L. Chambers, (“Plaintiff” or “Chambers”) filed a complaint on

21

March 31, 2016, alleging violations of state and federal laws related to the manufacturing,

22

marketing, and distribution of Risperdal, also known in its generic form as Risperidone. In

23

his complaint, Plaintiff alleges the medication caused numerous serious physical and

24

physiological side effects.

25

After filing three joint motions to continue the scheduling order deadlines regulating

26

discovery, Defendants filed a Motion to Compel Discovery Responses (Doc. No. 30). On

27

May 14, 2018, the Honorable Barbara Lynn Major, United States Magistrate Judge, granted

28

Defendants’ motion and ordered Plaintiff to serve responses to Defendants’ Interrogatories,
1
16cv762 JAH-BLM

1

Set One and Requests for Production of Documents, Set One on or before June 4, 2018.

2

See Doc. No. 32.

3

pending motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to comply with the court’s order

4

compelling discovery. Plaintiff filed no opposition.

On June 18, 2018, having received no response, Defendants filed the

5

On August 3, 2018, Judge Major issued a report and recommendation (“Report”)

6

addressing the motion and recommending this Court grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss.

7

Neither party filed objections.

8
9

After a review of the record and for the reasons set forth below, this Court ADOPTS
the magistrate judge’s Report and GRANTS Defendants’ motions to dismiss.

10
11

DISCUSSION
I.

Legal Standard

12

The district court’s role in reviewing a magistrate judge’s report and

13

recommendation is set forth in 28 U.S.C. section 636(b)(1). Under this statute, the court

14

“shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report...to which objection is

15

made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or

16

recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Id. The party objecting to the magistrate

17

judge’s findings and recommendation bears the responsibility of specifically setting forth

18

which of the magistrate judge’s findings the party contests. See Fed.R.Civ. P. 72(b). It is

19

well-settled, under Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that a district court

20

may adopt those parts of a magistrate judge’s report to which no specific objection is made,

21

provided they are not clearly erroneous. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 153-55 (1985).

22

II.

Analysis

23

Judge Major determined Plaintiff knowingly, intentionally, and willfully violated

24

the Court’s May 14, 2018 discovery order. Applying the five-factor test identified by the

25

Ninth Circuit in Thompson v. Housing Authority of City of Los Angeles, 782 F. 2d 829, 831

26

(9th Cir. 1986), Judge Major concluded that all of the factors weighed in favor of dismissal,

27

finding that Plaintiff’s refusal to conduct or respond to discovery: (1) impedes the

28

expeditious resolution of the case, (2) hinders the efficient management of the Court’s
2
16cv762 JAH-BLM

1

docket, (3) is prejudicial to Defendants in the form of wasted time, resources and effort,

2

and (4) prevents disposition of the case on its merits. Judge Major also considered and

3

rejected the imposition of less drastic sanctions in light of the circumstances and the

4

likelihood that monetary or evidentiary sanctions would prove unsuccessful. Based upon

5

Plaintiff’s failure to participate in discovery, respond to or comply with the discovery order,

6

and after consideration of the afore-mentioned factors, Judge Major recommends the

7

motion to dismiss be granted.

8

This Court conducted a de novo review of all relevant filings and finds the Report

9

provides a cogent analysis of the issues presented in the motion. In addition, the Court

10

notes Plaintiff’s pro se status, inability to retain new counsel, and Plaintiff’s submission of

11

executed authorization forms for the release of medical records and mental health records

12

from the Department of Veteran Affairs. Based on an independent review of the record,

13

the Court finds dismissal without prejudice appropriate.

14

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

15

For the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

16

1.

17

The findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge presented in the Report

are ADOPTED in their entirety;

18

2.

Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 34) is GRANTED; and

19

3.

The complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice.

20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22
23
24
25

DATED: November 16, 2018
_________________________________
HON. JOHN A. HOUSTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

26
27
28
3
16cv762 JAH-BLM