Guarino v. Wyeth LLC et al

Filing 66

ORDER denying 61 63 Plaintiff's Motions for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge James S. Moody, Jr on 5/23/2012. (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 Motions for Reconsideration
(Dkts. 61 & 63) and Defendants’ Responses in opposition (Dkts. 64 & 65). The Court,
having considered the motions, responses, and being otherwise advised of the premises,
concludes that the motions should be denied.
On November 7, 2011, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. with prejudice because the United States Supreme Court’s recent
decision in Pliva, Inc. v. Mensing, 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).
On April 3, 2012, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of the Brand
Defendants because the undisputed facts reflected that Plaintiff did not use any
metoclopramide manufactured by them, which was dispositive of her claims under Florida
law (Dkt. 59).

Plaintiff’s motions for reconsideration essentially seek to re-litigate issues already
considered and rejected by this Court. Plaintiff also attempts to assert arguments that she
could have raised previously. Plaintiff does not put forth any newly discovered or previously
unavailable evidence, Plaintiff does not cite a change in the controlling legal authorities, and
Plaintiff does not identify any errors of fact underlying the Court’s rulings. In short,
Plaintiff’s motions do not raise proper grounds for reconsideration.1
It is therefore ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff’s Motions for
Reconsideration (Dkts. 61 & 63) are DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida on May 23, 2012.

Copies furnished to:
Counsel/Parties of Record
S:\Odd\2010\10-cv-2885.mtsreconsider61and63.wpd

1

Notably, Plaintiff previously filed a motion for reconsideration with respect to the Court’s dismissal
of Teva with prejudice, which this Court denied on January 5, 2012 (Dkt. 49). Curiously, Plaintiff’s second
motion for reconsideration with respect to the dismissal of Teva purports to be a motion to alter judgment,
despite the fact that a final judgment was not entered against Plaintiff with respect to Teva. A final judgment
would not be necessary under these circumstances because Teva was dismissed with prejudice. Accordingly,
although the Court finds no merit to Plaintiff’s motion, procedurally, it is inappropriate as to the dismissal
of Teva with prejudice.
Page 2 of 2