Luberda v. Purdue Frederick Corp et al

Filing 190

CONSENT ORDER. With regard to the Plaintiff's first Amended Complaint 13 , which was the subject of the Motions to Dismiss, the Defendants remaining in this case are not required to file a response to the First Amended Complaint. Instead, the remaining Defendants shall respond to the Second Amended Complaint. Signed by the Honorable R Bryan Harwell on 4/2/2014. (hcic, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
Daniel C. Luberda by his appointed agent
Daniel L. Luberda,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Purdue Frederick Corp., Purdue Pharma
L.P., The Purdue Pharma Company, Purdue
Pharmaceutical Products L.P., Purdue
Pharma Technologies Inc., Purdue Pharma
of North Carolina Limited Partnership,
Purdue Pharmaceutical Laboratories
Limited Partnership, Purdue Products L.P.,
Purdue Pharmaceuticals Limited
Partnership, Michael Friedman, Paul
Goldenheim, M.D., John N. Stewart, and
Russell Gasdia,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

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

CONSENT ORDER

This matter comes before the Court by way of consent of the parties remaining in this
case.
On March 28, 2014, this Court ruled on various Motions to Dismiss filed by Defendants
in this matter, specifically as follows: DE number 126, Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant,
Scott Fishman; DE number 129, Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants Perry Fine, Russell
Portnoy, Alan Spanos, and Lynn Webster; DE number 133, Motion to Dismiss filed by Robin
Abrams, et al and the Purdue Defendants; and DE number 143, Motion to Dismiss filed by
Defendant Michael Friedman.

In its rulings on these Motions, which are set forth in the March 28, 2014 Order, DE
number 186, the Court dismissed certain of the Defendants and gave Plaintiff leave to file a
Second Amended Complaint within 15 days of the entry of the March 28, 2014 Order. The
remaining individual Defendants (Paul Goldenheim, MD, Michael Friedman, Russell Gasdia,
and John N. Stewart) and the remaining Purdue corporate Defendants shall respond to Plaintiff’s
Second Amended Complaint within the time period set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, as may be extended by agreement of the parties.
With regard to the Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, DE number 13, which was the
subject of the Motions to Dismiss, the Defendants remaining in the case are not required to file a
response to the First Amended Complaint. Instead, the remaining Defendants shall respond to
the Second Amended Complaint, as set forth above.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/R. Bryan Harwell
R. Bryan Harwell
United States District Judge
April 2, 2014
Florence, South Carolina

2

WE CONSENT:
NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH LLP
By: s/Susan M. Glenn
Susan M. Glenn
Federal Bar No. 5240
E-Mail: [e-mail]
Erin R. Stuckey
Federal Bar No. 9868
E-Mail: [e-mail]
1320 Main Street / 17th Floor
Post Office Box 11070 (29211-1070)
Columbia, SC 29201
[phone]
KING & SPALDING LLP
Chilton D. Varner
Georgia Bar No. 725450
E-mail: [e-mail]
Stephen B. Devereaux
Georgia Bar No. 219791
E-mail: [e-mail]
1180 Peachtree Street NE
Atlanta, GA 30309-3521
[phone] (Telephone)
[phone] (Facsimile)
Eric M. Wachter
D.C. Bar No. 995136
E-mail: [e-mail]
Danielle M. Brim
D.C. Bar No. 983737
E-mail: [e-mail]
1700 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20006-4707
[phone] (Telephone)
[phone] (Facsimile)

Attorneys for The Purdue Frederick Company Inc.; Purdue
Pharma L.P.; The Purdue Pharma Company; Purdue
Pharmaceutical Products L.P.; Purdue Pharma Technologies
Inc.; Purdue Products L.P.; Purdue Pharmaceuticals L.P.;
3

Michael Friedman; Russell Gasdia; Paul Goldenheim, M.D.;
and John H. Stewart

WE CONSENT:

By: s/Carla F. Grabert-Lowenstein
Carla F. Grabert-Lowenstein
Federal Bar No. 10496
E-Mail: [e-mail]
314 Main Street
Conway, SC 29526
[phone]
Lloyd M. Cueto
IL Bar No. 6292629; MO Bar No. 60376
7110 West Main Street
Belleville, IL 62223
[phone]
Attorneys for the Plaintiff

4