Luberda v. Purdue Frederick Corp et al
Plaintiff:
Daniel C Luberda
Defendant:
Purdue Frederick Corp, Purdue Pharma LP, Purdue Pharma Company, The, Purdue Pharmaceutical Products LP, Purdue Pharma Technologies Inc, Purdue Pharma of North Carolina Limited Partnership, Purdue Pharmaceutical Laboratories Limited Partnership, Purdue Products LP, Purdue Pharmaceuticals Limited Partnership, Michael Friedman, Howard Udell, Paul Goldenheim, Danielle Nelson, Edward B Mahony, Stuart D Baker, John N Stewart, David A Long, James Dolan, Robin Abrams, Richard S Silbert, Craig Landau, Robert F Kaiko, Bert Weinstein, Phillip C Strassburger, Russell Gasdia, William Malin, Alan Spanos, J David Haddox, Scott Fishman, Lynn Webster, Russell Portenoy, Perry Fine, Curtis Wright, James Heins and Charles Robin Hogen
Case Number:
4:2013cv00897
Filed:
April 3, 2013
Court:
South Carolina District Court
Office:
Florence Office
County:
Horry
Presiding Judge:
R Bryan Harwell
Nature of Suit:
Personal Injury: Health Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury Product Liability
Cause of Action:
28:1332 Diversity-Fraud
Jury Demanded By:
Both
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Date Filed | # | Document Text |
|---|---|---|
| February 26, 2015 | 242 |
CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER. Signed by the Honorable R. Bryan Harwell on 2/26/2015. (hcic, )
|
| October 7, 2014 | 204 |
OPINION AND ORDER: Defendants' motion to dismiss (ECF No. 192 ) is DENIED. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 10/7/2014.(prou, )
|
| April 2, 2014 | 190 |
CONSENT ORDER. With regard to the Plaintiff's first Amended Complaint 13 , which was the subject of the Motions to Dismiss, the Defendants remaining in this case are not required to file a response to the First Amended Complaint. Instead, the remaining Defendants shall respond to the Second Amended Complaint. Signed by the Honorable R Bryan Harwell on 4/2/2014. (hcic, )
|
| March 28, 2014 | 186 |
ORDER ruling on 126 Motion to Dismiss; 129 Motion to Dismiss; 133 Motion to Dismiss; 143 Motion to Dismiss; 183 Motion to Appoint Guardian ad Litem. The Court dismisses this action without prejudice as to Defend ants Edward Mahony, Stuart Baker, David A. Long, James Dolan, Robin Abrams, Richard S. Silbert, Craig Landau, M.D., Robert F. Kaiko, Bert Weinstein, Phillip C. Strassberger, J. David Haddox, DDS, M.D., James Heins, Curtis Wright, Charles Robert Hogen , Danielle Nelson, William Malin, Perry Fine, M.D., Lynn Webster, M.D., Russell Portenoy, M.D., Alan Spanos, M.D., and Scott Fishman, M.D. The motion to dismiss is denied as to Defendants Paul Goldenheim, M.D., Michael Friedman, Russell Gasdia, and J ohn N. Stewart. The plaintiff is allowed to engage in jurisdictional discovery as to these defendants during the general discovery period in the case. The motions to dismiss by the Purdue Defendants and Defendant Friedman on the basis that the neglig ence, gross negligence, and fraud claims fail to state a claim are denied, and the plaintiff is given leave to file a second amended complaint addressing the pleading deficiencies argued by the defendants as to those claims within 15 days. The plaint iffs Motion for Appointment of Guardian ad Litem (ECF No. 183 ) is granted, and Daniel L. Luberda as Guardian ad Litem for Daniel C. Luberda is substituted as Plaintiff. The motions to dismiss the action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) on the basis of the statute of limitations are denied. Signed by the Honorable R Bryan Harwell on 3/28/2014. (hcic, )
|
| May 31, 2013 | 124 |
ORDER denying 37 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction; denying 38 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction; denying 40 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction; denying 42 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction; denying 43 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction; denying 45 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; denying 46 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; denying 48 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; denying [55 ] Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; denying 70 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; denying 74 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; denying 77 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; denying 81 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; denying 84 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; denying 87 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; denying 90 Motion to Dismiss f or Failure to State a Claim; denying 93 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; denying 96 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; denying 99 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; denying 102 Motion to Dismiss fo r Failure to State a Claim; denying 105 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; denying 108 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; denying 111 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; denying 114 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; denying 117 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; denying 120 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; denying as moot 123 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response. Signed by The Honorable R Bryan Harwell on 5/31/2013. (hcic)
|
Access additional case information on PACER
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 South Carolina District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
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.
