Perez v. Oxford University

Background

Eric Andrew Perez, who was proceeding without a lawyer, sued Oxford University; AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, AstraZeneca LP, and AstraZeneca AB; and Drs. Melanie Jay, Mark J. Mulligan, and Martina A. Parauda. Perez alleged that health problems were caused by the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine. The defendants filed three motions to dismiss the operative amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which addresses the court’s power to hear a case, and Rule 12(b)(6), which addresses whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim.

Magistrate Judge Lehrburger issued a report and recommendation advising that the case be dismissed because Perez brought claims under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act, or PREP Act. The Act gives exclusive jurisdiction over claims brought under it to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Perez objected to the recommendation. He argued, among other things, that the defendants had conspired to defraud the United States, that the magistrate judge improperly relied on the amended complaint, that one motion was filed too late, and that he had not asserted PREP Act claims.

Court’s Analysis

Judge Caproni concluded that Perez’s objections were conclusory, repeated arguments he had already made, or raised arguments for the first time in his objections. They therefore did not require a fresh, detailed review of the challenged portions of the recommendation. The court nevertheless addressed two objections for clarification. It explained that courts generally evaluate a motion to dismiss based on the pleadings, and it found that Perez clearly asserted PREP Act claims in the amended complaint.

The court reviewed the recommendation for clear error and found none. It agreed that PREP Act actions must be brought in the District Court for the District of Columbia. Because the Southern District of New York lacked subject-matter jurisdiction—the legal power to hear the case—it could not adjudicate the action. The court therefore did not evaluate Perez’s other claims or his separate motion challenging the PREP Act’s constitutionality.

Disposition

Judge Caproni adopted Judge Lehrburger’s report and recommendation in full. The court dismissed Perez’s amended complaint without prejudice to refiling in the proper jurisdiction. It also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Perez permission to appeal without paying filing fees. The clerk was directed to terminate all open motions and close the case.