Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO: 08-3616, SECTION: J(2).
October 14, 2011
ORDER
Before the Court are Plaintiff Julie deMahy's Motion for Relief From Judgment (Rec. Doc. 63) and Motion to Alter and/or Amend Judgment (Rec. Doc. 67).
In Pliva v. Mensing, 131 S.Ct. 2567 (2011), the United States Supreme Court reversed the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and held that federal law preempts Plaintiff deMahy's failure to warn claims. On August 22, 2011, the Fifth Circuit, applying Mensing, vacated this Court's previous order denying Defendant Actavis, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss and remanded the case for entry of Judgment in favor of Defendant. The well-established "mandate rule" requires district courts on remand from a higher court "to effect [the] mandate to do nothing else." General Universal Systems, Inc. v. HAL, Inc., 500 F.3d 444, 453 (5th Cir. 2007) (quoting United States v. Castillo, 179 F.3d 321, 329 (5th Cir. 1999)). This Court is required to "implement both the letter and the spirit of the appellate court's mandate and may not disregard the explicit directives of that court." United States v. Matthews, 312 F.3d 652, 657 (5th Cir. 2002) (quotingUnited States v. Becerra, 155 F.3d 740, 753 (5th Cir. 1998)).
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the Plaintiff's Motions are DENIED.