Amgen Inc. et al v. Hospira, Inc.

Filing 271

MEMORANDUM ORDER Denying MOTION for Reconsideration of Its Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint (D.I. 217 ). Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 6/23/2017. (nms)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
AMGEN INC., et al.,
Plaintiffs,
Civil Action No. 15-839-RGA

v.
HOSPIRA, INC.,
Defendant.

MEMORANDUM ORDER
Plaintiffs have filed a motion for reconsideration. (DJ. 217). The matter Plaintiffs seek
to reconsider is my denial of a motion to amend the complaint. Plaintiffs filed that motion on
August 15, 2016. (DJ. 73). I denied it, in relevant part, on October 3, 2016. (DJ. 137). The
instant motion followed on May 30, 2017. "Motions for reargument" are to be filed within
fourteen days of the decision about which reargument is sought. D.Del. LR 7.1.5(a). Thus, on its
face, the motion is not a motion for reconsideration.
The motion did not attach the proposed amended complaint, and thus it is not a new
motion to amend the complaint. See D.Del. LR 15.1 (procedural requirements for a motion to
amend).
Thus, it should be denied, as it does not appear to be any sort of procedurally-proper
motion.
In the alternative, considering the merits, I first note that the reasons why I rejected it
more than eight months ago still apply. And they have more force now, as the motion wants to
add three new parties for a case that is scheduled for trial on September 18, 2017, less than three

I

months from now. And, as Defendant emphasizes, Plaintiffs could have filed a separate lawsuit
against these three defendants, a possibility I expressly noted in the October order. (DJ. 137 at 2
n.1). Plaintiffs still have that option today. To the extent Plaintiffs have lost a claim against a
non-party, it is only because Plaintiffs have slept on their rights. It is not Defendant's
responsibility.
Whatever procedural label is given to the motion, I do not think it has any merit, and it is
therefore DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this

'J-!J day of June 2017.