In Re: Vioxx Prod Liability, No. 09-30445 (5th Cir. 2010)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 09-30445 Document: 00511222421 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/01/2010 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 09-30445 Summary Calendar September 1, 2010 IN RE: VIOXX PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. SERGI CHEPILKO, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus MERCK AND COMPANY, INC., Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:05-MD-1657 USDC No. 2:08-CV-959 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 09-30445 Document: 00511222421 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/01/2010 No. 09-30445 Before DAVIS, SMITH, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Appearing pro se, the plaintiff-appellant, Sergi Chepilko, has filed a threepage brief. It is difficult to tell what legal claims he makes on appeal. The only issue stated is [w]hether District Court correctly dismissed with prejudice all claims of plaintiff for failure to comply with Pre-Trial Order 28. Chepilko asserts that he did not receive from the District Court numerous Pre-Trial Orders, including PTO-28 . . . . He states that [i]stead, Vioxx claims Administrator offered plaintiff to enroll in the Settlement Program, which he did. He declined to sign the stipulation of dismissal because, as he posits, he had real concerns that such demand without consideration of the settlement offer could be fraudulent and addressed this issue to the court. Nobody explained [to] plaintiff why such stipulation of dismissal requires upfront unconditional signing. Chepilko asserts that being required to sign the stipulation of dismissal, pursuant to the settlement, is illegal. That claim is without merit. Because he has shown no reversible error, the judgment of dismissal is AFFIRMED. * Pursuant to 5TH CIR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR . R. 47.5.4. 2

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.