Monica Ball v. Takeda Pharmaceuticals America, No. 13-2338 (4th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-2338 MONICA L. BALL, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS AMERICA, INCORPORATED; TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY LIMITED, a Japanese Corporation, Defendants – Appellees, and TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS NORTH AMERICA, INCORPORATED; TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS INTERNATIONAL, INCORPORATED; TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC; TAKEDA AMERICA HOLDINGS, INC.; TAKEDA GLOBAL RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT CENTER, INC.; TAKEDA SAN DIEGO, INC.; TAP PHARMACEUTICALS PRODUCTS, INC., Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., District Judge. (3:13-cv-00168-JAG-MHL) Submitted: November 26, 2014 Decided: Before MOTZ, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. December 15, 2014 Monica L. Ball, Appellant Pro Se. Damon W.D. Wright, VENABLE, LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Monica Takeda Company Ball Pharmaceuticals Limited, and filed a diversity America, related Inc., civil Takeda defendants, action Pharmaceutical alleging liability and associated Virginia tort claims. against product On appeal, Ball challenges the district court’s orders dismissing her original complaint, in part with leave to amend; dismissing her amended complaint with prejudice; and denying her post-judgment motions. We confine our opening brief. review to those issues fairly raised in the See Town of Nags Head v. Toloczko, 728 F.3d 391, 395 n.4 (4th Cir. 2013) (recognizing that arguments not raised in opening brief are waived). We have reviewed the record and submissions of the parties and find no reversible error or abuse of discretion in the district court’s challenged rulings. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Ball v. Takeda Pharms. Am., Inc., No. 3:13-cv-00168- JAG-MHL (E.D. Va. Apr. 26, 2013; Aug. 8, 2013; Oct. 1, 2013). We deny Ball’s motions for appointment of counsel and for an extension of time to file a reply brief. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3

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.