Reed v. Pfizer, Inc.
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:22-cv-08578
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Reed v. Pfizer, Inc., Judge Broderick ordered U.S. Marshals service on Pfizer and directed that Dr. Lanham be terminated as a party.
Louis Reed, Jr., Pfizer, Inc., and Dr. Jonathan A. Lanham. The order arranged service on Pfizer and directed that Dr. Lanham be terminated as a party.
What happened
Reed v. Pfizer, Inc. is a lawsuit in which Louis Reed, Jr., proceeding without a lawyer, alleges damages from using Lipitor, also called Atorvastatin Calcium, a drug developed, manufactured, marketed, and sold by Pfizer. Reed was allowed to proceed without paying court fees in advance.
The court arranged for the U.S. Marshals Service to serve Pfizer. The deadline for service was extended to 90 days after the summons is issued, and Reed was told to request more time if service is not completed by then. The court also noted that Dr. Jonathan A. Lanham was no longer a defendant because his inclusion would defeat diversity jurisdiction.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick directed the clerk to issue the summons, prepare the service forms, and provide the necessary papers to the Marshals Service. He also directed the clerk to terminate Dr. Lanham as a party and denied fee-free status for any appeal from this order.
The detailed version
- Reed v. Pfizer, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-08578
- Vernon Broderick
- Oct. 14, 2022
Background
Louis Reed, Jr. filed this action against Pfizer, Inc., alleging damages from his use of Lipitor, also known as Atorvastatin Calcium. The opinion states that Pfizer developed, manufactured, marketed, and sold the drug. Reed brought the action based on diversity-of-citizenship jurisdiction and was proceeding without a lawyer.
An earlier order allowed Reed to proceed without prepaying court fees. Because he had that status, the court explained that he could rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve Pfizer. The opinion also states that Reed initially named Dr. Jonathan A. Lanham, but an earlier order determined that including Dr. Lanham would defeat diversity jurisdiction and treated Reed’s claims as brought only against Pfizer.
Court’s Actions
The court directed the clerk to complete a U.S. Marshals Service process form for Pfizer, issue a summons, and provide the Marshals Service with the documents needed to serve Pfizer. The court extended the service period to 90 days after the summons is issued because Reed could not serve the summons and amended complaint before the court reviewed the amended complaint and ordered the summons issued. The court stated that Reed should request an extension if service is not completed within that period.
The court also directed the clerk to terminate Dr. Lanham as a party on the docket because he was no longer a defendant in the action. The clerk was further directed to mail Reed an information package. Reed was required to notify the court in writing if his address changes, and the court stated that the action could be dismissed if he failed to do so.
Disposition
Judge Vernon S. Broderick ordered the clerk to issue and facilitate service of the summons on Pfizer and to terminate Dr. Lanham as a party. The court certified that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for purposes of an appeal. The order did not decide whether Reed’s allegations against Pfizer are legally or factually valid.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.