Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 1, 2020

Lewis v. Abbott Laboratories

Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Docket
1:08-cv-07480
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Lewis v. Abbott Laboratories, Judge Abrams denied Lewis’s Rule 52 motion with prejudice because it repeated untimely reconsideration arguments.

Who this affects

Lewis, whose motion was denied with prejudice; the action remained closed. The order also directed defense counsel to serve Lewis with a copy.

What happened

In Lewis v. Abbott Laboratories, Lewis sought damages for injuries allegedly caused by the defendants’ drugs and argued that the case should proceed to a jury.

Lewis argued that the court should have viewed the complaint’s facts favorably, applied the continuing-violation rule to the filing deadline, and made findings about the claims.

Judge Ronnie Abrams denied the motion with prejudice because it repeated arguments from an earlier motion that the court had denied as untimely. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motion, and defense counsel was directed to mail Lewis a copy of the order.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Lewis v. Abbott Laboratories · No. 1:08-cv-07480
Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Date
Apr. 1, 2020

Background

Lewis filed a motion identified in the opinion as a Rule 52 motion. Lewis sought damages for an injury allegedly caused by the defendants’ drugs in combination. Lewis argued that the court should accept the complaint’s allegations as true, draw reasonable inferences in Lewis’s favor, apply the continuing-violation rule to the statute of limitations, and recognize circumstances that Lewis described as extraordinary hardship. Lewis also argued that the court had not made findings of fact and conclusions of law concerning the claims and that Lewis was entitled to a jury trial.

Ruling

The opinion states that the court’s March 2, 2020 order denied Lewis’s motion for reconsideration as untimely and closed the action. The court determined that the present motion appeared to raise similar arguments and denied it with prejudice for the reasons stated in the March 2 order. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion at Docket 61. Defense counsel was directed to mail Lewis a copy of the order and file proof of service.

Effect

The order denied Lewis’s Rule 52 motion with prejudice and did not reopen the action. The opinion does not provide the March 2 order’s full reasoning beyond stating that the earlier motion for reconsideration was untimely.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.