CANUTO v. GLAXOSMITHKLINE US CORPORATE HEADQUATER et al
Filing
49
MEMORANDUM OPINION re: 48 Order granting Motion to Dismiss and denying Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Christopher R. Cooper on 10/31/2018. (lccrc1)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
TERESITA A. CANUTO,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 18-cv-1570 (CRC)
GLAXOSMITHKLINE, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Pro se plaintiff Teresita Canuto brings this action against five vaccine manufacturers and
various federal defendants for injuries she alleges her then-infant son suffered from allergic
reactions to vaccines administered January 2001 through October 2005. Compl., ECF No. 1,
at 5, 8. The Court has granted defendant Pfizer’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, see
Order, ECF No. 29; Pfizer Def. Mem. Op., ECF No. 30, and the federal defendants’ motion to
dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, see Order, ECF 44; Fed. Defs. Mem. Op., ECF No. 45. The
Court previously granted the remaining vaccine defendants’ request for an extension of time to
respond to the complaint pending resolution of Pfizer’s motion. See Aug. 24, 2018 Minute
Order. The remaining defendants have now moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of
jurisdiction for the same reasons as the now-terminated defendants, which Ms. Canuto has
opposed. See Defs.’ Mot. Dismiss, ECF No. 38; Pl.’s Open Letter, ECF No. 47.
The Court will grant the remaining vaccine defendants’ motion to dismiss. As explained
in the two previous memorandum opinions, see ECF Nos. 30 & 45, Ms. Canuto’s failure to file
with the Clerk of the Court of Federal Claims a timely written election to proceed with a civil
action requires the Court to dismiss this action. See 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-21(a); id. § 300aa11(a)(2)(B).
Before the Court is also Ms. Canuto’s “Open Letter to the Court,” which the Court
construes as both a motion for reconsideration of the dismissal orders and a further response to
the remaining vaccine defendants’ motion to dismiss. See Pl.’s Open Letter. In her letter, Ms.
Canuto explains that she believed she had rejected the judgment of the Federal Circuit by filing a
petition for writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court. Id. at 1–2. To the extent she
relies on this explanation to seek reconsideration of the Court’s previous orders dismissing Pfizer
and the federal defendants, the motion is denied. Ms. Canuto advanced similar arguments in her
response to the federal defendants’ motion to dismiss, see Pl.’s Opp’n to Fed. Defs.’ MTD, ECF
No. 37, at 10–11, which the Court considered in reaching its decision to dismiss the federal
defendants, see Fed. Defs. Mem. Op. at 2–3. In the letter, Ms. Canuto also explains that she was
pro se before the Court of Federal Claims and Federal Circuit and was not informed by the Clerk
of the Court of Federal Claims that she was required to file a written letter in order to reject the
judgment of that court. Pl.’s Open Letter at 1–2. To the extent she seeks equitable relief from
the election requirements of the Vaccine Act in response to the remaining vaccine defendants’
motion to dismiss, the Court “has no authority to create equitable exceptions to jurisdictional
requirements” such as 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-11(a)(2)(B), no matter how unfortunate the outcome.
See Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).
An order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
CHRISTOPHER R. COOPER
United States District Judge
Date: October 31, 2018
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?