Lupia v. C. R. Bard, Inc. et al

Filing 30

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting 28 JOINDER by C. R. Bard, Inc. in Defendant Sofradim Production SAS's Oral Motion to Dismiss; the plaintiff's claims against Sofradim and Bard are DISMISSED with prejudice; because no other defendants remain in the case, the plaintiff's case is closed and stricken from the docket. Signed by Judge Joseph R. Goodwin on 5/22/2017. (cc: counsel of record; plaintiff via certified mail, return receipt requested) (kp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
IN RE:

C. R. BARD, INC.,
PELVIC REPAIR SYSTEM
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION

MDL No. 2187

THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:
Paula Lupia v. C. R. Bard, Inc., et al.

Civil Action No. 2:12-cv-00090

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On February 13, 2017, pursuant to Rules 16(a)(5) and 37(b)(2)(A) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, I granted as moulded a motion to dismiss made by defendant Sofradim Production
SAS (“Sofradim”) for the plaintiff’s failure to appear at a mandatory settlement conference. [ECF
No. 27]. In reaching this decision, I relied on Wilson v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., 561 F.2d 494
(4th Cir. 1977), in which the Fourth Circuit identified four factors that a court must consider when
ruling on a motion to dismiss under Rule 37(b)(2)(A). See Order at 4–6 [ECF No. 27] (applying
the Wilson factors to Ms. Lupia’s case).1 Concluding that the first three factors weighed in favor
of sanctions as requested by Sofradim, I nevertheless declined to award dismissal because it would
offend the court’s duty under Wilson’s fourth factor, which is to consider the effectiveness of lesser
sanctions. In recognition of this duty, I ordered that the plaintiff pay Sofradim a $1,000.00
monetary sanction and that, in the event the plaintiff failed to pay Sofradim $1,000.00 within thirty
days, the plaintiff’s claims against Sofradim would be dismissed with prejudice without further

1

The Wilson factors are as follows: (1) Whether the noncomplying party acted in bad faith; (2) the amount of prejudice
his noncompliance caused his adversary, which necessarily includes an inquiry into the materiality of the evidence he
failed to produce; (3) the need for deterrence of the particular sort of noncompliance; and (4) the effectiveness of less
drastic sanctions. Mut. Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Richards & Assocs., Inc., 872 F.2d 88, 92 (4th Cir. 1989) (citing
Wilson, 561 F.2d at 503–06).

notice to the plaintiff. I also directed the Clerk to send a copy of the Order to the plaintiff via
certified mail, return receipt requested, and to post the order on the court’s website for thirty days.
C. R. Bard, Inc. (“Bard”) joined in Sofradim’s motion to dismiss on February 15, 2017. [ECF No.
28]. On May 16, 2017, Sofradim advised me that the plaintiff has not complied with my order. In
addition, the plaintiff has not filed a pleading or responded to my order.
Accordingly, the court ORDERS that the plaintiff’s claims against Sofradim are
DISMISSED with prejudice. The court further ORDERS that Bard’s motion [ECF No. 28] to
join in Sofradim’s motion is GRANTED, and the plaintiff’s claims against Bard are DISMISSED
with prejudice. Because no other defendants remain in the case, the plaintiff’s case is closed and
stricken from the docket.
The court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to the plaintiff via certified
mail, return receipt requested, and to counsel.
ENTER:

2

May 22, 2017