Luberda v. Purdue Frederick Corp et al

Filing 124

ORDER denying 37 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction; denying 38 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction; denying 40 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction; denying 42 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction; denying 43 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction; denying 45 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; denying 46 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; denying 48 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; denying [55 ] Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; denying 70 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; denying 74 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; denying 77 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; denying 81 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; denying 84 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; denying 87 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; denying 90 Motion to Dismiss f or Failure to State a Claim; denying 93 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; denying 96 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; denying 99 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; denying 102 Motion to Dismiss fo r Failure to State a Claim; denying 105 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; denying 108 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; denying 111 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; denying 114 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; denying 117 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; denying 120 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; denying as moot 123 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response. Signed by The Honorable R Bryan Harwell on 5/31/2013. (hcic)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
Daniel C. Luberda,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Purdue Frederick Corporation, et al.
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)

Civil Action No.: 4:13-cv-00897-RBH

ORDER

Plaintiff filed the above-captioned action alleging various causes of action against a large
number of Defendants stemming from Plaintiff’s alleged addiction to Oxycontin. Although some
Defendants have been terminated from the case, thirty five Defendants still remain. Of these thirtyfive Defendants, twenty-nine are represented by Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, four are
represented by Sowell Gray Stepp and Laffitte, one is represented by Rosen Rosen and Hagood, and
one appears to be unrepresented.
This case was removed to this Court on April 3, 2013, less than two months ago. However,
the case has already generated more than one-hundred and twenty docket entries, the review and
management of which have created a burden on the Clerk’s Office and Court staff. Further, the three
law firms representing Defendants have, as of the date of this Order, filed twenty-six separate
motions to dismiss, many bearing similar or identical arguments and attachments. Further, each of
these motions will require an equal number of responses by Plaintiff. Managing these motions will
require a great deal of time from the Court, particularly as it requires the Court to cross reference
the numerous other motions.
The Court has inherent power to manage its docket in the interests of justice. See Hanover
Ins. Co. v. Paint City Contractors, Inc., 299 F.Supp.2d 554, 556 n.1 (E.D. Va. 2004) (citing

Internatio–Rotterdam, Inc. v. Thomsen, 218 F.2d 514, 516 (4th Cir. 1955)). Based on the reasons
stated above, the Court finds that it will serve the purposes of judicial economy, efficiency and
fairness to the parties to streamline the filing of these motions, as well as other filings in the case.
The Court will therefore deny all pending motions to dismiss without prejudice, and allow the law
firms representing Defendants thirty days to each file a single omnibus motion reflecting all of the
arguments for their respective clients. This filing procedure will make it easier for the Clerk’s
Office to docket the parties’ filings, and make it easier for the Court to review the parties’
arguments.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that all pending Motions to Dismiss are DENIED,
without prejudice, and Plaintiff’s Motion for an Extension [Doc. # 123] is DENIED as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that each law firm representing Defendants shall have thirty
(30) days to file a single motion to dismiss reflecting all of the arguments for their respective clients,
with the following parameters:1
(1)

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough’s brief shall not exceed one hundred (100)
pages in length;2

(2)

Sowell Gray Stepp and Laffitte’s brief shall not exceed forty (40) pages in length;

(3)

Rosen Rosen and Hagood’s brief does not currently exceed fifteen (15) pages, thus
any refiled brief shall not exceed fifteen (15) pages in length;

1

In the event the sole unrepresented Defendant, Michael Friedman, retains one of the law firms
already employed in the case, that firm may request leave to file excess pages by way of
motion with an accompanying memorandum explaining the need for such excess pages.
Should Mr. Friedman retain a separate law firm, and should that law firm also wish to file a
motion to dismiss, then its brief shall not exceed (15) pages in length.

2

All briefs shall be formatted as follows: double-spaced, standard margins, and a twelve-point
font.
2

(4)

Plaintiff’s Responses in opposition shall be no longer than the respective brief filed
by the applicable law firm on behalf of its clients; and

(5)

All parties shall mail a bound courtesy copy of their briefs and all attachments to
chambers.

IT IS ALSO ORDERED that for all future motions, each law firm representing Defendants
shall file a single motion reflecting all of the arguments for their respective clients subject to the
limitations described in Local Rule 7.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ R. Bryan Harwell
R. Bryan Harwell
United States District Judge
Florence, South Carolina
May 31, 2013

3