Silbersher v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc
- James Donato
- 3:18-cv-01496
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In Silbersher v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc., Judge Donato dismissed the case with prejudice under Rule 12(b)(6) after no amended complaint was filed.
The dismissal affected Zachary Silbersher and the other plaintiffs, as well as the defendants, including Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc.
What happened
In Silbersher v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc., the court had dismissed the plaintiffs’ corrected first amended complaint and allowed them to file another amendment by June 15, 2020. The court warned that missing the deadline would lead to dismissal with prejudice.
Zachary Silbersher did not file an amended complaint and instead filed a notice of appeal. He also communicated that he intended to stand on the existing complaint and appeal, although he did not file a formal notice making that election.
The court dismissed the case with prejudice under Rule 12(b)(6), which concerns whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. Judge Donato entered the order on July 2, 2020.
The detailed version
- Silbersher v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc · No. 3:18-cv-01496
- James Donato
- July 2, 2020
Background
On May 11, 2020, the court dismissed the corrected first amended complaint and gave the plaintiffs permission to amend by June 15, 2020. The court expressly stated that failure to meet the deadline would result in dismissal with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), a rule allowing dismissal when a party fails to comply with a court order.
Zachary Silbersher did not file an amended complaint. He filed a notice of appeal on June 9, 2020. He did not file a formal notice electing to stand on the existing complaint and appeal, but he left messages with the court’s deputy stating that intention by voicemail and email.
Ruling
The court said there was a good argument for dismissing the case under Rule 41(b) because Silbersher had not adequately responded to the order setting the amendment deadline. But the court concluded that he had made some, although incomplete, effort to tell the court of his election. The court therefore dismissed the case with prejudice under Rule 12(b)(6), the rule governing failure to state a legally sufficient claim. The order does not provide further explanation of the underlying claims in this excerpt.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.