In Re: Vioxx Prod Liability, No. 12-31075 (5th Cir. 2013)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 12-31075 Document: 00512287003 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/25/2013 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 12-31075 Summary Calendar June 25, 2013 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk IN RE: VIOXX PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION --------------------------------------------------------------------------ELENA STRUJAN, Plaintiff-Appellant v. MERCK AND COMPANY, INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellee Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:05-MD-1657 USDC No. 2:07-CV-906 Before SMITH, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Elena Strujan, a nonprisoner, filed a civil complaint against Merck and Company, Incorporated (Merck), for damages based on her use of the drug Vioxx. Because she failed to disclose her potential claim against Merck in a prior bankruptcy petition, the district court found that the doctrine of judicial estoppel * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. Case: 12-31075 Document: 00512287003 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/25/2013 No. 12-31075 applied and granted Merck s summary judgment motion. The district court also denied Strujan s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal. Strujan now moves in this court for leave to proceed IFP on appeal. An IFP movant must demonstrate that she is a pauper and that she will raise nonfrivolous issues on appeal. Carson v. Polley, 689 F.2d 562, 586 (5th Cir. 1982). Strujan has not demonstrated that she has a nonfrivolous argument for appeal regarding the district court s judicial estoppel finding and grant of summary judgment. See Love v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 677 F.3d 258, 261-62 (5th Cir. 2012); Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, her motion for leave to proceed IFP is DENIED, and the appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. 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.