Guarino v. Wyeth LLC et al

Filing 49

ORDER denying 40 Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge James S. Moody, Jr on 1/5/2012. (LN)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION

ANDREA GUARINO,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 8:10-cv-2885-T-30TGW

WYETH LLC and
SCHWARZ PHARMA, INC.,
Defendants.
_____________________________________/

ORDER
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration
(Dkt. 40) and Defendant Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.’s Response in opposition (“Teva”)
(Dkt. 46). The Court, having considered the motion, response, and being otherwise advised
of the premises, concludes that the motion should be denied.
On November 7, 2011, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Teva
with prejudice because the United States Supreme Court’s recent decision in Pliva, Inc. v.
Mensing, - - - U.S. - - -, 131 S. Ct. 2567 (2011) (reh’g denied) held that federal law preempts
and therefore bars Plaintiff’s state-law claims against Teva in this case (Dkt. 39).
Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration essentially seeks to re-litigate issues already
considered and rejected by this Court. And, as Teva points out, a motion for reconsideration
is not a proper forum merely to seek a second bite at the apple. Also of note is that recently

over twenty additional decisions have been entered dismissing materially identical claims in
the face of the same or similar arguments Plaintiff presents in this case.
In sum, Plaintiff makes no new arguments and raises no new facts that are proper
grounds for reconsideration.
It is therefore ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff’s Motion for
Reconsideration (Dkt. 40) is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida on January 5, 2012.

Copies furnished to:
Counsel/Parties of Record
S:\Odd\2010\10-cv-2885.mtreconsider40.frm

Page 2 of 2