Jarreau v. Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al, No. 2:2016cv12417 - Document 43 (E.D. La. 2017)
Court Description: ORDER AND REASONS granting 41 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution. Signed by Judge Sarah S. Vance on 12/28/2017. (blg)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Jarreau v. Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al Doc. 43 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA THEODORE J ARREU CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. 16-12417 J ANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ET AL. SECTION “R” (5) ORD ER AN D REASON S Before the Court is defendants’ m otion to dism iss for failure to prosecute. 1 For the following reasons, the Court grants the m otion. I. BACKGROU N D Plaintiff Theodore J arreau asserts that he suffered injuries after ingesting allegedly unsafe prescription drugs, including Risperdal, Risperdal Consta, Invega, and/ or Risperidone. 2 On J uly 5, 20 16, plaintiff filed a com plaint against defendants J anssen Pharm aceuticals, Inc., J ohnson & J ohnson, J anssen Research & Developm ent, LLC, Patriot Pharm aceuticals, LLC, Breen Distribution, Inc., and Vintage Pharmaceuticals, LLC. 3 Defendants Breen Distribution and Vintage Pharm aceuticals have since been 1 R. Doc. 41. R. Doc. 1 at 3. 3 Id. at 1-2. Vintage Pharm aceuticals was incorrectly named as Endo Pharm aceuticals, Inc. See R. Doc. 41-1 at 2 n.1. 2 Dockets.Justia.com dism issed from the case. 4 The remaining defendants now m ove to dism iss the com plaint for failure to prosecute. 5 Plaintiff has not responded to this m otion. II. D ISCU SSION The Court m ay dism iss a claim for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and the Court’s “inherent power to control its docket and prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases.” Boudw in v. Gray stone Ins. Co., 756 F.2d 399, 40 1 (5th Cir. 1985). The record before the Court clearly indicates that plaintiff has failed to prosecute this case. On April 5, 20 17, the Court perm itted plaintiff’s attorneys to withdraw as counsel. 6 That sam e day, the Court issued an order to show cause and ordered plaintiff to appear personally at a hearing on April 19, 20 17 to discuss his future representation. 7 A copy of this order was m ailed to plaintiff by certified m ail, and he signed a return receipt. 8 The Court’s order warned plaintiff that his failure to appear could result in dism issal of the com plaint. 9 4 5 6 7 8 9 R. Doc. 8; R. Doc. 38. R. Doc. 41. R. Doc. 34. R. Doc. 35. R. Doc. 36. R. Doc. 35 at 1. 2 Plaintiff failed to appear at the scheduled Show Cause hearing. 10 The Court ordered the m atter to proceed with plaintiff, in proper person. 11 On May 11, 20 17, plaintiff failed to participate in a preliminary scheduling conference. 12 Plaintiff did not contact the Court to explain his failure to appear at either the Show Cause hearing or the prelim inary conference. Further, defendants’ counsel represents that plaintiff has failed to respond to discovery requests, failed to participate in a discovery conference, and has not provided defendants’ counsel with current contact inform ation. 13 Defendants have provided copies of their discovery requests and certified m ail receipts. 14 Plaintiff has not responded to defendants’ m otion, and has not provided any excuse for his failure to participate in this litigation. The Court thus dism isses plaintiff’s com plaint for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The Court dism isses the com plaint with prejudice because the record dem onstrates a clear record of delay caused by the plaintiff him self rather than his attorney. See Berry v. CIGN A/ RSI-CIGNA, 975 F.2d 1188, 1191 (5th Cir. 1992). Plaintiff has taken no action in this case for over six m onths, and has ignored scheduled 10 11 12 13 14 R. Doc. 37. Id. R. Doc. 40 . R. Doc. 41-1 at 2-4. R. Doc. 41-3; R. Doc. 41-4; R. Doc. 41-5; R. Doc. 41-6; R. Doc. 41-7. 3 hearings and conferences with the Court and discovery requests from defendant. The Court further finds that lesser sanctions will not prom pt diligent prosecution. See id. The Court previously warned plaintiff that his failure to appear at the Show Cause hearing could lead to dism issal of his com plaint. 15 Plaintiff did not respond to the Court’s order or to defendants’ m otion to dism iss, and appears to have no interest in continuing this litigation. III. CON CLU SION For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS defendants’ m otion. Plaintiff’s com plaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJ UDICE. 28th New Orleans, Louisiana, this _ _ _ _ _ day of Decem ber, 20 17. _____________________ SARAH S. VANCE UNITED STATES DISTRICT J UDGE 15 R. Doc. 35 at 1. 4
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
