Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Jackson v. Glaxosmithkline, LLC

United States District Court, Third Circuit

August 27, 2013

LEROY JACKSON, Plaintiff
v.
GLAXOSMITHKLINE, LLC., Defendant

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

MARTIN C. CARLSON, Magistrate Judge.

I. Statement of Facts and of the Case.

On November 27, 2012, the defendant, GlaxoSmithKline, removed this pro se civil action to federal court. (Doc. 1.) The plaintiff's pro se complaint, which was attached as Exhibit A to the notice of removal, (Id., Ex. 1), was a spare document, which alleged in two pages that GlaxoSmithKline had violated the Food and Drug Act by misbranding its diabetes and depression medications, Avandia and Paxil. On the basis of this summary assertion, Jackson sought damages totaling $400, 000 from GlaxoSmithKline. (Id.)

We initially stayed this litigation pending the resolution of legal issues which were before the court of appeals, but lifted that stay on June 14, 2013. (Doc. 12.) Jackson then filed a motion seeking leave to amend his complaint, (Doc. 13.), which we granted. (Doc. 14.) Our order granting Jackson leave to amend, however, advised the plaintiff in clear and precise terms as follows:

The plaintiff shall, therefore, file an amended complaint on or before July 30, 2013. However, we instruct the plaintiff that this "amended complaint must be complete in all respects. It must be a new pleading which stands by itself as an adequate complaint without reference to the complaint already filed." Young v. Keohane , 809 F.Supp. 1185, 1198 (M.D. Pa. 1992). See e.g., Biggins v. Danberg, No. 10-732, 2012 WL 37132 (D.Del. Jan. 6, 2012); Quirindongo v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, No. 10-1742, 2011 WL 2456624 (M.D. Pa. June 16, 2011). Therefore, in amending this complaint, the plaintiff's amended complaint must:
1. Recite factual allegations which are sufficient to raise the plaintiff's claimed right to relief beyond the level of mere speculation.
2. Contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, " Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2), set forth in averments that are "concise, and direct, " Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(e)(1), and stated in separately numbered paragraphs describing the date and time of the events alleged, and identifying wherever possible the participants in the acts about which the plaintiff complains.
3. This complaint must be a new pleading which stands by itself as an adequate complaint without reference to any other pleading already filed. Young v. Keohane , 809 F.Supp. 1185, 1198 (M.D. Pa. 1992).
4. The complaint should set forth plaintiff's claims in short, concise and plain statements, and in sequentially numbered paragraphs. It should name proper defendants, specify the offending actions taken by a particular defendant, be signed, and indicate the nature of the relief sought. Further, the claims set forth in the complaint should arise out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences, and they should contain a question of law or fact common to all defendants.
5. The Court further places the plaintiff on notice that failure to comply with this direction may result in the dismissal of this action pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

(Id.)

Warned in this fashion of the consequences which would flow from a failure to amend, Jackson took no action to timely amend his complaint. The defendant, therefore, moved to dismiss Jackson's original complaint on August 7, 2013, arguing that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. (Docs. 15 and 16.) We then entered an order directing that: "the plaintiff shall file a response to the motion in accordance with Local Rule 7.6 within 14 days of the filing of the defendant's brief on or before August 21, 2013." (Doc. 17.) This order went on to advise Jackson that:

Local Rule 7.6 of the Rules of this Court imposes an affirmative duty on the plaintiff to respond to motions and provides that:
Any party opposing any motion, other than a motion for summary judgment, shall file a brief in opposition within fourteen (14) days after service of the movant's brief, or, if a brief in support of the motion is not required under these rules, within seven (7) days after service of the motion. Any party who fails to comply with this rule shall be deemed not to oppose such motion . Nothing in this rule shall be construed to limit the authority of the court to grant any motion before expiration of the prescribed period for filing a brief in opposition. A brief in opposition to a motion for summary judgment and LR 56.1 responsive statement, together with any transcripts, affidavits or other relevant documentation, shall be filed within twenty-one (21) days after service of the movant's brief. Local Rule 7.6 (emphasis added).
It is well-settled that "Local Rule 7.6 can be applied to grant a motion to dismiss without analysis of the complaint's sufficiency if a party fails to comply with the [R]ule after a specific direction to comply from the court.' Stackhouse v. Mazurkiewicz , 951 F.2d 29, 30 (1991)." Williams v. Lebanon Farms Disposal, Inc., No. 09-1704 , 2010 WL 3703808, *1 (M.D. Pa. Aug.26, 2010). ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.