Owen v. Dr. Reddy's Laboratories

Filing 29

ORDER denying 27 Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge Martin Reidinger on 3/29/2018. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(khm)

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
CIVIL CASE NO. 1:17-cv-00037-MR-DLH

TED J. OWEN,
Plaintiff,
vs.
DR. REDDY’S LABORATORIES,
Defendant.
______________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

MEMORANDUM OF
DECISION AND ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Plaintiff’s Motion for
Reconsideration [Doc. 27].
I.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The Plaintiff commenced this action on December 29, 2016, by filing a

Complaint in the General Court of Justice, Superior Court Division, for
Transylvania County, North Carolina. In his Complaint, the Plaintiff asserts
claims of products liability and negligence against the Defendant Dr. Reddy’s
Laboratories based on injuries he allegedly suffered after using the
Defendant’s pharmaceutical product. [Doc. 1 at 11-15].
This case was removed to this Court on February 1, 2017. [Doc. 1].
On March 1, 2017, the Defendant filed a Motion for Judgment on the

Pleadings. [Doc. 10]. In its Motion, the Defendant argued that the Plaintiff’s
Complaint failed to state a claim for relief and that the Plaintiff’s claim
involving generic pharmaceutical products is preempted by federal law. [Id.].
The Plaintiff opposed that motion. [Doc. 13].
On December 13, 2017, the Honorable Dennis L. Howell, United
States Magistrate Judge, issued a Memorandum and Recommendation
recommending that the Defendant’s Motion should be granted and that the
Plaintiff’s Complaint should be dismissed. [Doc. 19]. On December 27,
2017, the Plaintiff filed a pleading seeking leave to file an amended complaint
and referencing a death in his family. [Doc. 20]. On January 8, 2018, this
Court denied the Plaintiff’s request to amend his Complaint but granted the
Plaintiff until January 26, 2018, to file objections to the Memorandum and
Recommendation. [Doc. 22].
On January 12, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a pleading entitled “Addendum
Defective Product Liability Claim.” [Doc. 23]. The Court order this pleading
to be stricken on January 22, 2018, because it appeared to be an attempt to
amend the Complaint in direct contravention of the Court’s prior Order. [Doc.
24]. The Plaintiff took no further action that was allowed by the Court within
the extension of time the Plaintiff had been granted. Thus, the Plaintiff
lodged no objection to the Memorandum and Recommendation of the
2

Magistrate Judge. Therefore, on February 2, 2018, the Court accepted
Judge Howell’s Memorandum and Recommendation and dismissed this
case with prejudice. [Doc. 25]. On March 5, 2018, the Plaintiff filed the
present Motion for Reconsideration. [Doc. 27].

II.

ANALYSIS
Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows the Court

“[o]n motion and just terms [to] relieve a party or [his] legal representative
from a final judgment, order, or proceeding” for any of the following reasons:
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable
neglect;
(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable
diligence, could not have been discovered in time to
move for a new trial under Rule 59(b);
(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or
extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an
opposing party;
(4) the judgment is void;
(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or
discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that
has been reversed or vacated; or applying it
prospectively is no longer equitable; or
(6) any other reason that justifies relief.

3

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). “A motion under Rule 60(b) must be made within a
reasonable time -- and for reasons (1), (2), and (3) no more than a year after
the entry of the judgment or order or the date of the proceeding.” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 60(c)(1). In addition to meeting one of the subsections of Rule 60(b),
a litigant seeking to set aside a judgment also must establish that he has a
meritorious claim or defense to the action and that there would be no unfair
prejudice to the nonmoving party by having the judgment set aside. See
Augusta Fiberglass Coatings, Inc. v. Fodor Contracting Corp., 843 F.2d 808,
811 (4th Cir. 1998). Rule 60(b) “provides for extraordinary relief and is only
to be invoked upon a showing of exceptional circumstances.” United States
v. Jones, 42 F. Supp. 2d 618, 620 (W.D.N.C. 1999).
The Plaintiff has failed to establish that any such “exceptional
circumstances” exist here. The Plaintiff has failed to show that he has a
meritorious claim, and he has failed to state any facts that would warrant
relief from judgment under any of the provisions of Rule 60(b). Particularly,
he has still not alleged any defect in the Defendant’s product, but only that
the package insert for the drug in question was changed after the
manufacture of the particular drug the Plaintiff ingested. [Doc. 27 at 2].
Finally, the Plaintiff has not shown that the Defendant would not suffer any
unfair prejudice by having the judgment set aside. For all of these reasons,
4

the Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration does not come within the purview
of Rule 60(b) and therefore must be denied.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s Motion for
Reconsideration [Doc. 27] is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Signed: March 29, 2018

5