Trammel v. Sanofi S.A. LLC

Background

Linda Trammel moved for permission to amend her complaint. She sought to revise the definition of her injury and add allegations of fraudulent concealment. She also sought permission to file a reply brief after the deadline.

Reasons for Denying Amendment

The court relied first on the law-of-the-case doctrine, which generally prevents a court from revisiting an issue already decided in the same litigation unless extraordinary circumstances exist. The multidistrict-litigation court had rejected similar attempts to amend the Master Complaint in 2019. Although Trammel acknowledged that ruling, she did not argue that it was erroneous or caused a serious injustice.

The court also found undue delay. After denying permission to amend the Master Complaint, the multidistrict-litigation court issued Pretrial Order No. 105, which allowed plaintiffs to amend their short form complaints to add individualized allegations about their medical care, treatment, or communications with medical professionals. The deadline for adding those allegations was January 2021. Trammel did not provide a reasonable explanation for failing to amend by that deadline. The court rejected her argument that the short form’s format prevented her from adding plaintiff-specific facts, noting that the prior order expressly allowed those facts and that she offered no evidence that she had tried to add them.

Finally, the court noted that Trammel did not initially submit a proposed amended complaint as required by Local Rule 10-1. She later filed one with her motion to file a late reply brief, but Sanofi then had no opportunity to respond.

Disposition

The court denied Trammel’s motion for leave to amend her complaint. The court granted her request to file a late reply brief. Judge Vince Chhabria entered the order on July 8, 2024.