From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Balter v. Novartis Pharms. Corp.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA
Nov 14, 2013
CASE NO. C13-5403 BHS (W.D. Wash. Nov. 14, 2013)

Opinion

CASE NO. C13-5403 BHS

11-14-2013

GAYLAH BALTER, Plaintiff, v. NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS CORPORATION, Defendant.


ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO

SHOW CAUSE

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation's ("Novartis") motion for order to show cause (Dkt. 25). The Court has considered the pleadings filed in support of and in opposition to the motion and the remainder of the file and hereby grants the motion for the reasons stated herein.

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On March 10, 2006, Plaintiff Gaylah Balter filed a complaint in the Eastern District of New York against Novartis alleging damages as a result of Novartis's drugs. Dkt. 1. On June 6, 2006, the case was transferred to the Middle District of Tennessee and consolidated pursuant to a multidistrict litigation order.

On May 28, 2013, the case was transferred to this district and assigned to the undersigned. Dkt. 13.

On October 17, 2013, Novartis filed the instant motion arguing that Gaylah Balter is deceased and the personal representative may not be the proper party to pursue this action. Dkt. 25. On October 28, 2013, Plaintiff Anaya Baiter responded. Dkt. 27. On November 1, 2013, Novartis replied. Dkt. 29.

II. DISCUSSION

Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(a) allows for substitution of the proper party if a claim is not extinguished upon a party's death.

In this case, Novartis argues that the current plaintiff, Anaya Balter acting as the personal representative of Gaylah Balter's estate, may not be the proper party to this lawsuit. Novartis asserts that Gaylah Balter's estate has been closed and that it was distributed to two individuals and a trust. Anaya Balter counters that the issue should be brought before the Court as a motion to dismiss and not as a motion for order to show cause. The Court disagrees because the resolution of these issues will be most efficiently addressed at this time. Therefore, the Court grants Novartis's motion.

Finally, Plaintiff's counsel's pro hac vice status has been "pending" for more than five months. Counsel shall obtain local counsel, file a proper application, and follow the rules of the district or the Court will impose sanctions.

III. ORDER

Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that Novartis's motion for order to show cause (Dkt. 25) is GRANTED.

________________

BENJAMIN H. SETTLE

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Balter v. Novartis Pharms. Corp.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA
Nov 14, 2013
CASE NO. C13-5403 BHS (W.D. Wash. Nov. 14, 2013)
Case details for

Balter v. Novartis Pharms. Corp.

Case Details

Full title:GAYLAH BALTER, Plaintiff, v. NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS CORPORATION…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA

Date published: Nov 14, 2013

Citations

CASE NO. C13-5403 BHS (W.D. Wash. Nov. 14, 2013)