Leonard et al v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc.
||Esther Alexander, LeRon Davis, Bridgett Herrera, Shelly A. Leonard and Velicia Mata
||Abbott Laboratories, Inc.
||October 12, 2010
||US District Court for the Eastern District of New York
||Central Islip Office
||Arthur D. Spatt
||William D. Wall
|Nature of Suit:
||Personal Inj. Prod. Liability
|Cause of Action:
||28:1332 Diversity-Product Liability
|Jury Demanded By:
Access additional case information on PACER
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
|March 5, 2012
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER - It is hereby: ORDERED, that plaintiff Shelly A. Leonard's claims are dismissed pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) without prejudice with leave to renew her individual claims or any claims on behalf of her infant/child i n the event the Court certifies a class under Federal of Civil Procedure 23, and it is further ORDERED, that the Plaintiffs' motion to add Kristie Pagan as a plaintiff and putative New York class representative is granted, and it is further ORDE RED, that the Plaintiffs' motion to amend the complaint to remove the New York Plaintiff's express waiver of punitive damages under the NYCPA is denied, and it is further ORDERED, that the Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadin gs pursuant to Rule 12(c) dismissing the Ohio Plaintiffs claims under the OCSPA and ODTPA is granted, and it is further ORDERED, that the Texas Plaintiffs' TDTPA claim is abated for sixty days after the Texas Plaintiffs serve written notice on A bbott. The Texas Plaintiffs must provide notice within twenty days of the date this Order issues, and notify the Court when they have done so, and it is further ORDERED, that the Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c) as to the Plaintiffs' claims under the NYCPA, NHCPA, and TDTPA is denied, and it is further ORDERED, that the Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Rule l2(c) as to the Plaintiffs' claim for injunctive reli ef is granted, and it is further ORDERED, that the Plaintiffs are directed to file a second amended complaint consistent with the rulings contained herein within 20 days of the date of this order. If the Texas Plaintiffs do not comply with the notice requirement within twenty days of the date of this order, the Court will consider a motion by the Defendant to dismiss any claims asserted on behalf of the Texas Plaintiffs in the second amended complaint. Ordered by Senior Judge Arthur D. Spatt on 3/5/2012. (Coleman, Laurie)
|January 20, 2012
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER - The three and half page submission by Abbott provides an insufficient basis for the Court to render a decision on whether the claims are moot. As a result, the Court directs the parties to submit supplemental brief s addressing whether Abbotts voluntary recall of the contaminated formula rendered moot the Plaintiffs claims under the consumer protection statutes. The submission is not to exceed 10 pages and shall be filed on or before January 27, 2012. Opposition briefs not to exceed 5 pages can be filed on or before February 3, 2012. The Court will not grant any requests for extensions. Ordered by Senior Judge Arthur D. Spatt on 1/20/12. (Coleman, Laurie)
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system.
A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the New York Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?