In re Rezulin Products Liability Litigation

Full title: In re: REZULIN PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION

Court: United States District Court, S.D. New York

Date published: Jul 2, 2002

Master File 00 Civ. 2843 (LAK), (MDL No. 1348) (S.D.N.Y. Jul. 2, 2002)

Opinion

Master File 00 Civ. 2843 (LAK), (MDL No. 1348)

July 2, 2002

PRETRIAL ORDER NO. 87 (Abandoned Remand Motions)

LEWIS A. KAPLAN, District Judge.

This Document Relates to: 01 Civ. 10561 (LAK); 01 Civ. 10562 (LAK); 01 Civ 10563 (LAK); 01 Civ. 10564 (LAK); 01 Civ. 10572 (LAK); 01 Civ. 11813 (LAK).

The Court is in receipt of courtesy copies of plaintiffs' motions to remand and memoranda of law supporting the motions in the above captioned cases. Each was sent to the Court under a cover letter dated April 26, 2002 and was received in Chambers on April 29, 2002.

To begin with, these papers are untimely. The papers in Mullins v. Parke-Davis, 01 Civ. 10561 (LAK), Adams v. Parke-Davis, 01 Civ. 10562 (LAK), Abadine v. Parke-Davis, 01 Civ 10563 (LAK), Accardo v. Parke-Davis, 01 Civ. 10564 (LAK), and Lopez v. Parke-Davis, 01 Civ. 10572 (LAK), were due November 14, 2001. The papers in Cox v. Parke-Davis, 01 Civ. 11813 (LAK), were due January 14, 2002.

Furthermore, the Court already has disposed of these motions. In Pretrial Order No. 73, the Court denied the motion to remand in Cox. In Pretrial Order No. 42, the Court treated plaintiffs' abandonment of their motions to remand as admissions of fact that the non-diverse defendants were fraudulently joined in Mullins, Adams, Abadine, Accardo, and Lopez.

To the extent that it was not clear from Pretrial Order No. 42, in light of plaintiffs' abandonment of their motions and admissions of fact, the Court denies plaintiffs' motions to remand in Mullins v. Parke-Davis, 01 Civ. 10561 (LAK), Adams v. Parke-Davis, 01 Civ. 10562 (LAK), Abadine v. Parke-Davis, 01 Civ 10563 (LAK), Accardo v. Parke-Davis, 01 Civ. 10564 (LAK), and Lopez v. Parke-Davis, 01 Civ. 10572 (LAK).

SO ORDERED.