Dunn v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14111 (M.D. Alabama Jan. 26, 2024), entails yet one more post-MDL try by a remanded plaintiff to amend her criticism. This time the courtroom rejected the modification.
Why was the modification rejected? We’ve been seeing during the last couple of years how SCOTUS has emphasised the centrality of “historical past, custom, and textual content” in constitutional interpretation. Thoughts you, we’re not one hundred percent clear on the excellence between “historical past” and “custom,” although we have now a tough thought. (Historical past is what the authors of the Structure mentioned, whereas custom is how courts and society have handled the problem through the years). Possibly historical past, custom, and textual content play roles within the Dunn courtroom’s resolution to not allow an modification to the criticism.
Right here is a few historical past: The litigation concerned claims of Everlasting Chemotheraoy Induced Alopecia. There have been sufficient instances to warrant an MDL, after which MDL folklore and mythology took over, with a Grasp Grievance (which later developed right into a Second Amended Grasp Grievance) that contained normal allegations, a Quick Type Grievance that contained particular person allegations, then bellwether trials, then remands. The plaintiff in Dunn filed her criticism in 2017, and the case was remanded in 2023.
Right here is a few custom (or is it extra historical past?): In 2019 the MDL courtroom denied the Plaintiff Steering Committee’s proposed Third Amended Grievance, which might have described in better element how the defendant allegedly harmed the plaintiffs, and the way the the defendant allegedly defrauded the plaintiffs. The MDL courtroom held that the proposed modification would have negated a big quantity of labor carried out within the MDL and would moot earlier MDL rulings. The MDL courtroom additionally denied amendments to quick kind complaints that may have buttressed the claims in opposition to statute of limitations defenses. The courtroom reasoned that the amendments would have set off a brand new spherical of discovery and a revision of statute of limitations defenses.
Right here is one thing we really feel fairly comfy calling custom: the regulation of the case. Dunn was ruled by Eleventh Circuit regulation, and the Eleventh Circuit acknowledges that when a case will get transferred from one decide to a different, that isn’t a possibility to relitigate every part determined by the primary decide. Possibly a litigant can persuade the second decide that the primary dedicated clear error. However that’s a troublesome take a look at.
Right here is a few textual content: Federal Rule of Civil Process 15 offers {that a} “get together could amend its pleadings as soon as as a matter in fact no later than … 21 days after serving it.” However in “all different instances a celebration could amend its pleading solely with the opposing get together’s consent or the courtroom’s go away.” To make sure — and right here perhaps we’re again to custom — go away to amend is “freely given when justice so requires,” whereas on the similar time such go away shall be denied if there’s “undue delay, unhealthy religion, or dilatory motive on the a part of the movant” or an modification would go to “undue prejudice to the opposing get together.”
Now that we have now a deal with on historical past, custom, and textual content, we ask once more, why did the Dunn courtroom reject the plaintiff’s prooosed modification?
Initially, the modification was just too late. The plaintiff failed to hunt an modification in the course of the six years this case languished within the MDL. The plaintiff tried to excuse her inaction by arguing that the Quick Type Grievance didn’t permit for the form of allegations she wished so as to add, however the courtroom didn’t purchase that. Loads of different plaintiffs had been capable of amend their Quick Agency Complaints and add the kind of allegations that the Dunn plaintiff needed so as to add.
Secondly, and little question associated, the proposed modification was functionally an identical to the Third Amended Grasp Grievance that the MDL decide rejected. The plaintiff in Dunn groused concerning the MDL courtroom’s denial of the Third Amended Grievance, however there was no trace of clear error. Good day, regulation of the case. Plus, the MDL courtroom accurately believed that to permit the modification would require reopening of discovery. Who desires that? (Nicely, in addition to the unhealthy guys.) Furthermore, the modification was associated to the statute of limitations points within the MDL that arose when the plaintiffs shot themselves within the foot once they outlined when their claimed accidents occurred.
Thus, “As a result of the Plaintiff has did not amend her criticism within the six years that this case has been pending with no justification past the issue of working inside a textual content field and pursuant to the MDL’s orders, the Court docket finds that the Plaintiff engaged in undue delay in submitting her movement.” Performed and Dunn.
We protection hacks may not all the time adore MDL people lore and mythology and the unusual procedures they engender, however it’s good to see plaintiffs tripped up by such procedures.
