Knoles v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.

Background

On October 17, 2019, the court granted the Teva defendants’ motion to dismiss the second amended complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction, meaning the court determined it could not exercise legal authority over those defendants. The court granted that motion without leave to amend.

The court separately ordered Marlessa Knoles to explain why the second amended complaint should not be dismissed as to FEI Women’s Health LLC, Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceutical, LLC, and Duramed Pharmaceuticals. The court identified two possible grounds: Knoles had added those defendants in violation of an order allowing her to add only “Paragard” as a defendant, and she had not served them within the 90-day period required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m).

Reasoning

Knoles did not respond to the order to show cause by the October 31, 2019 deadline. The court found that she had failed to comply with its orders, had not served the remaining defendants within 90 days after filing the second amended complaint, and had not responded to the court’s order.

The court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), which permits involuntary dismissal when a plaintiff fails to prosecute a case or comply with court rules or orders. It considered the required factors: the public’s interest in resolving cases promptly, the court’s need to manage its docket, possible prejudice to defendants, the policy favoring decisions on the merits, and whether less severe sanctions were available. The court found that four of the five factors strongly favored dismissal. Although the policy favoring decisions on the merits did not support dismissal, the court found little point in imposing a less severe sanction because Knoles had shown no interest in complying with the court’s orders or the service requirement.

The court also identified Rule 4(m) as an independent basis for dismissal. That rule permits dismissal without prejudice against a defendant who was not served within 90 days after the complaint was filed, after the plaintiff receives notice and an opportunity to respond.

Disposition

The court dismissed the second amended complaint as to FEI Women’s Health LLC, Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceutical, LLC, and Duramed Pharmaceuticals. Because the claims against the Teva defendants had been dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction and the claims against the remaining defendants had been dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to serve, the court dismissed the action without prejudice as to all defendants. The clerk was directed to close the file.