Kulkarni v. Actavis Generics

Background

Nivedita Kulkarni, representing herself, filed two related actions against pharmaceutical manufacturers. She alleges that she took prednisone in 2019 and later developed Functional Myoclonus, a neurological disorder involving shaking and muscle spasms. She believes the medication caused the disorder. In No. 22-CV-5735, she sued three generic manufacturers on a failure-to-warn theory. In No. 22-CV-5740, she sued three different manufacturers, stating that the second action concerned the brand-name label.

Kulkarni paid the filing fees for both cases. She then applied to proceed without paying certain litigation costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). The remaining costs at issue were the fees for serving the summons and complaints on the defendants.

Financial information

Kulkarni reported that she was employed and earned an average of $4,523.33 per month. She reported having no dependents, receiving $7,472 in family gifts during the prior year, incurring approximately $2,900 in regular monthly expenses, owing more than $2,500 in medical bills, and having $731.29 in her bank accounts when she applied.

The court explained that permission to proceed without paying filing fees is available to people who demonstrate poverty, although they need not show complete destitution. The court also noted that this status does not require the government to pay other litigation expenses, and that only service-of-process fees were at issue here.

Ruling

Judge Barbara Moses found that Kulkarni had not shown that she was financially unable to pay for service of process. The court was particularly unpersuaded in light of her reported earnings and the fact that the defendants appeared to be major pharmaceutical manufacturers, making evasion of service unlikely. The court therefore denied both of Kulkarni’s applications. The order did not decide the merits of her failure-to-warn claims.