Guddeck et al v SmithKline Beecham Corporation

Filing 236

ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: Defendant's Motion for Remand and for Reconsideration Under Rule 60(b) 156 is GRANTED, and this matter is REMANDED to the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County. (Written Opinion). Signed by Chief Judge Michael J. Davis on 3/5/15. (GRR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

K.G., a Minor, by JULIE GUDDECK
Guardian, and JULIE GUDDECK,
Individually,
Plaintiffs,
v.
ORDER
Civil File No. 13-02508 (MJD/LIB)
SMITHKLINE BEECHAM
CORPORATION d/b/a
GLAXOSMITHKLINE,
Defendant.
Adam Peavy, Bailey Peavy Baily PLLC, and Michael K. Johnson, Johnson Becker
PLLC, Counsel for Plaintiffs.
Jerry W. Blackwell and Peter J. Goss, Blackwell Burke P.A., Andrew T. Bayman,
Halli D. Cohn and Robert K. Woo, Jr., King & Spalding LLP, Counsel for
Defendant.
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Remand and for
Reconsideration Under Rule 60(b). [Docket No. 156] Plaintiffs seek
reconsideration of the Court’s July 22, 2014 Order [Docket No. 110] adopting the
Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Brisbois [Docket No. 76]
denying remand. The Court heard oral argument on January 15, 2015, in Duluth.
1

The Court’s decision on a motion for reconsideration rests within its
discretion. Hagerman v. Yukon Energy Corp., 839 F.2d 407, 413 (8th Cir. 1988).
Motions for reconsideration serve a limited function: to correct
manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered
evidence. . . . Nor should a motion for reconsideration serve as the
occasion to tender new legal theories for the first time.
Id. at 414 (citation omitted). A motion to reconsider “afford[s] an opportunity for
relief in extraordinary circumstances.” Arnold v. Cargill Inc., No. CIV01-2086,
2004 WL 2331814, at *1 (D. Minn. Oct. 13, 2004) (citation omitted).
The Court construes Plaintiffs’ motion as a request to file a motion for
reconsideration of its July 22, 2014 Order. For the reasons that follow, the Court
grants Plaintiffs’ motion and remands Plaintiffs’ lawsuit to the Court of Common
Pleas of Philadelphia County.
The Court considers Plaintiffs’ motion after careful review of the Third
Circuit’s opinion in A.S. v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 769 F.3d 204 (3d Cir.
2014), a substantively and procedurally related case. Given the Third Circuit’s
opinion and the extraordinary circumstances of this particular case,
reconsideration of the Court’s July 22, 2014 Order is necessary and just.
The Court remands Plaintiff’s case to Pennsylvania state court where it
was originally filed and set for trial, and where it will be properly litigated
2

together with several other Paxil pregnancy cases as part of Pennsylvania’s
sophisticated mass tort program.
Accordingly, based upon the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED:
Defendant’s Motion for Remand and for Reconsideration Under
Rule 60(b) [Docket No. 156] is GRANTED, and this matter is
REMANDED to the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia
County.

Dated: March 5, 2015

s/ Michael J. Davis
Michael J. Davis
Chief Judge
United States District Court

3