Opinion
00 Civ. 2843 (LAK); This Document Relates to: 01 Civ. 6515 (LAK); 01 Civ. 7751 (LAK); 01 Civ. 7754 (LAK); 01 Civ. 7757 (LAK); 01 Civ. 7759 (LAK); 01 Civ. 7760 (LAK); 01 Civ. 7762; (LAK)01 Civ. 7766 (LAK); 01 Civ. 8152 (LAK); 01 Civ. 8163 (LAK); 01 Civ. 9116 (LAK); 01 Civ. 10561 (LAK); 01 Civ. 10562 (LAK); 01 Civ. 10563 (LAK); 01 Civ. 10564 (LAK); 01 Civ. 10565 (LAK); 01 Civ. 10568 (LAK); 01 Civ. 10570 (LAK); 01 Civ. 10572 (LAK)
January 7, 2002
PRETRIAL ORDER NO. 42 (Abandonment of Certain Remand Motions)
Pretrial Order No. 14, issued April 3, 2001, required counsel for defendants to identify, on the last business day of June 2001 and of every second month thereafter, to the Court any new remand and other pending motions in all transferred actions pending before this Court and to submit any papers in opposition thereto. Pretrial Order No. 14 further directed plaintiffs affected by such motions to serve and file reply papers, and provide this Court with courtesy copies of their moving papers, within fourteen days thereafter.
In accordance with Pretrial Order No. 14, defendant identified fourteen cases in a brief filed on August 31, 2001 and thirteen additional cases in a brief filed on October 31, 2001. Plaintiffs in the identified cases thus had until September 14, 2001 and November 14, 2001, respectively, to serve and file their reply papers and to provide the Court with copies of their moving papers.
Plaintiff's counsel in the above captioned cases have failed to comply with Pretrial Order No. 14. While such failure cannot be deemed a consent to subject matter jurisdiction or a waiver of defects in subject matter jurisdiction, see United States v. 27.09 Acres of Land, 1 F.3d 107, 111 (2d Cir. 1993) (citing Bender v. Williamsport Area Sch. Dist., 475 U.S. 534, 541 (1986)), it may be deemed an admission that the non-diverse defendants in those cases were in fact fraudulently joined, as was argued by defendants in those cases. It may also be deemed an admission by the plaintiff in Vernell Lewis that the physician-defendant is an employee of the Public Health Services within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 233 and is thereby eligible for coverage under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The implied admissions of fact render this Court's jurisdiction over the actions proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
See Pretrial Order No. 17. Defendants argue that territory representatives have been fraudulently joined in Seraille v. Warner-Lambert Co., No. 01 Civ. 6515, Faile v. Warner-Lambert Co., No. 01 Civ. 7751, Milano v. Warner-Lambert Co., No. 01 Civ. 7754, Sifuentes v. Parke-Davis, No. 01 Civ. 7762, Howard v. Warner-Lambert Co., No. 01 Civ. 8152, East v. Warner-Lambert Co., No. 01 Civ. 8163, Whitley v. Warner-Lambert Co., No. 01 Civ. 10565, Roberts v. Parke-Davis, No. 01 Civ. 10568, and Beaver v. Warner-Lambert Co., No. 10570. See Def. Aug. 31, 2001 Mem. of Law in Opposition to Motions to Remand at 1-17; Def. Oct. 31, 2001 Mem. of Law in Opposition to Motions to Remand at 1-11. Defendants argue that physicians have been fraudulently joined in Beverly v. Warner-Lambert Co., No. 01 Civ. 7757, and Vernell Lewis v. Warner-Lambert Co., No. 01 Civ. 7760. See Def. Aug. 31, 2001 Mem. of Law in Opposition to Motions to Remand at 25-30. Defendants argue that pharmacies have been fraudulently joined in Hamilton v. Warner-Lambert Co., No. 01 Civ. 7759, Mary Lewis v. Warner-Lambert Co., No. 01 Civ. 7766, Mullins v. Parke-Davis, No. 01 Civ. 10561, Adams v. Parke-Davis, No. 01 Civ. 10562, Abadine v. Parke-Davis, No. 01 Civ. 10563, Accardo v. Parke-Davis, No. 01 Civ. 10564, Whitley v. Warner-Lambert Co., No. 01 Civ. 10565, Roberts v. Parke-Davis, No. 01 Civ. 10568, and Lopez v. Pfizer Inc., No. 01 Civ. 10572. See Def. Aug. 31, 2001 Mem. of Law in Opposition to Motions to Remand at 17-19, 21-24; Def. Oct. 31, 2001 Mem. of Law in Opposition to Motions to Remand at 16-28.
See Def. Aug. 31, 2001 Mem. of Law in Opposition to Motions to Remand at 30.
Accordingly, pursuant to Pretrial Order No. 14 and Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the motions to remand in Seraille v. Warner-Lambert Co., No. 01 Civ. 6515, Faile v. Warner-Lambert Co., No. 01 Civ. 7751, Milano v. Warner-Lambert Co., No. 01 Civ. 7754, Beverly v. Warner-Lambert Co., No. 01 Civ. 7757, Hamilton v. Warner-Lambert Co., No. 01 Civ. 7759, Vernell Lewis v. Warner-Lambert Co., No. 01 Civ. 7760, Sifuentes v. Parke-Davis, No. 01 Civ. 7762, Mary Lewis v. Warner-Lambert Co., No. 01 Civ. 7766, Howard v. Warner-Lambert Co., No. 01 Civ. 8152, East v. Warner-Lambert Co., No. 01 Civ. 8163, Blount v. Warner-Lambert Co., No. 01 Civ. 9116, Mullins v. Parke-Davis, No. 01 Civ. 10561, Adams v. Parke-Davis, No. 01 Civ. 10562, Abadine v. Parke-Davis, No. 01 Civ. 10563, Accardo v. Parke-Davis, No. 01 Civ. 10564, Whitley v. Warner-Lambert Co., No. 01 Civ. 10565, Roberts v. Parke-Davis, No. 01 Civ. 10568, Beaver v. Warner-Lambert, No. 10570, and Lopez v. Pfizer Inc., No. 01 Civ. 10572, hereby are deemed abandoned.
SO ORDERED.