Jiggetts v. Janseen Pharmaceuticals, No. 1:2018cv03399 - Document 54 (D. Md. 2019)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 12 Motion for Clerk's Entry of Default; granting 22 MOTION for Leave to File Amended Complaint ; granting 25 Motion to Withdraw Parts of Complaint that are Incorrect ; denying as moot 31 Motion for Leave to File Response/Reply to Answer. Signed by Judge Richard D. Bennett on 9/9/2019. (kw2s, Deputy Clerk)(c/m 9.9.19)

Download PDF

Jiggetts v. Janseen Pharmaceuticals Doc. 54 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT rOR THE DISTRICT or MARYLAND ALEXANDER J IGG ETrs, * Plaintiff, * v. • Civil Action No. RDB-18-3399 JANSEEN PHl\RMl\CEUTICALS', * Defendant. * * * * * * * * * MEMORANDUM * * Alexander Jiggetts ("Mr. Jiggetts"), pro se Plaintiff, brought Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ('Janssen") * * * ORDER suit against Defendant, on October 29, 2018 seeking damages related to his alleged injury from the drugs Risperdal@ and Invega@. four motions: (1) Request for Default Judgement Now pending before this Court are (ECF No. 12); (2) Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint (ECF No. 22); (3) Motion to Withdraw Parts of Complaint Incorrect (ECF No. 25); and (4) Motion for Leave of Court to File a Response/Reply Answer (ECF No. 31). The parties' submissions that are to have been reviewed and no hearing is necessary. See Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md. 2018). For the reasons that follow, this Court shall DENY !\[r. Jiggetts' Request for Default Judgement to File Amended Incorrect. Complaint However, and his Motion and shall GRANT his Motion for Leave to Withdraw Mr. Jiggetts must file a Proposed Parts of Complaint Amended Complaint, that are to which In his Complaint, Plaintiff refers to Defendant as 'Janseen Pharmaceuticals." (Compl. I, ECF No. I.) Defendant notes in its Answer, however, that the proper title for Defendant is "Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc." (Answer I, ECF No. 10.) Dockets.Justia.com Defendants may respond in due course. Response/Reply Mr. Jiggetts' ]\lotion for Leave of Court to File a to Answer is, therefore, moot and shall be DENIED AS MOOT. BACKGROUND i\lr. Jiggetts alleges that he took the drug "risperidone" schizoaffective him tire easily. Sustenna" from 2013 to April of 2017 for disorder, and it caused him to grow breasts, gain excessive weight, and makes (Compl. 1, ECF No.1.) He also alleges that he took the drug "Invega from 2017 to present and it similarly caused him to grow breasts, gain excessive weight, and makes him tire easily. (Id.) Mr. Jiggetts adds that Invega "leaves a pain in your arm when they stick you and it burns when it goes in." (!d.) Mr. Jiggetts alleges that when he first started taking risperidone, pounds. he weighed 180-200 pounds, but now he weighs almost 300 (!d. at 1-2.) Mr. Jiggetts states that the FDA only approves risperidone was taking it for schizoaffective for schizophrenia, disorder, which he alleges "is malpractice." states that Janssen "is committing cruel and unusual punishment but he (Id. at 1.) He also by selling these medicines" and alleges that Janssen "deprive[s] you of life, liberty, and property by having people take these toxic medicines without warnings" and "committed people the effects of this [sic] medicines." hundred intentional negligence by not telling (Id. at 1-2.) Mr. Jiggetts seeks damages of "one million dollars" and asks this Court to make him whole again by granting him damages for "pain and suffering and emotional discomfort." Janssen answered the Complaint (!d.) on January 28, 2019 and a scheduling order was issued. (Answer, ECF No. 10; Sched. Order, ECF No. 11.) The next day, January 29, 2019, Mr. Jiggetts filed the pending Request for Default Judgement, 2 seeking default judgment for one hundred million dollars based on Defendant's failure to answer. (Mot. Default, ECF No. 12.) On January 31, 2019, Mr. Jiggetts supplemented his request stating: "Defendant answered today which is the 23rd day yet he did not meet the 21 day deadline" adding "] send this out already and moot the first one because] believe] forgot to put a stamp on it." (Supp!., ECF No. 13.) Both l\1r. Jiggetts' request and supplement were dated January 28, 2019. (See ECF Nos. 12, 13.) On February 15, 2019, Mr. Jiggetts filed the pending Motion for Leave to File ,\mended Complaint, seeking to add Janssen's CEO as a defendant and to add further information in support of his claim. (Mot. l\m., ECF No. 22.) However, Mr. Jiggetts notes that the amended complaint does not moot the original complaint, and he reminds the court that he continues to "seek judgment on the original complaint for it took plaintiff 22 days to answer." (prop. l\m. Comp!., ECF No. 22-1.) On February 25, 2019, Mr. Jiggetts filed the pending Motion to Withdraw Parts of Complaint that are Incorrect, seeking to withdraw paragraph two of his Complaint because it is not true that he was taking risperidone for schizoaffective disorder. (Mot. Withdraw, ECl' No. 25.) On March 18,2019, Mr. Jiggetts filed the pending Motion for Leave of Court to File a Response/Reply to Answer, stating that there are untrue statements in the Answer, and "there needs to be a reply." (Mot. Reply, ECF No.3!.) Mr. Jiggetts also asked this Court to appoint counsel to act on his behalf. (See ECl' Nos. 24, 34, 42.) This Court appointed pro bono counsel to represent Mr. Jiggetts but later granted pro bono counsel's Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 44) of that order. (See ECF No. 46.) Mr. Jiggetts then filed another motion for counsel to be appointed, which this Court 3 denied upon consideration of Janssen's opposition, which stated that Mr. Jiggetts had filed over fifty lawsuits in this Court as well as another twenty in other courts and had exhausted the "three strikes" afforded for frivolous filings under 28 U.S.c. ~ 1915(g). (See I\lem. Op., ECF No. 48.) In its Order, this Court granted leave to Defendant to file a summary judgment motion. (ECF No. 49.) This Court denied Mr. Jiggetts' motion to reconsider and extended the deadline for dispositive motions to be ftled in this case until Tuesday, September 10, 2019. (ECF No. 53.) For the reasons that follow, this Court shall DENY Mr. Jiggetts' Request for Default Judgement and shall GRANT his Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint and Motion to Withdraw Proposed Parts of Complaint Amended Complaint, that are Incorrect. to which Defendants However, may respond Jiggetts' Motion for Leave of Court to File a Response/Reply and shall be DENIED Mr. Jiggetts must file a in due course. Mr. to Answer is, therefore, moot AS MOOT. DISCUSSION This Court recognizes that the Plaintiff is pro se and has accorded his pleadings liberal construction. 1. See Erickson I'. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). Default Judgment Mr. Jiggetts seeks default judgment because Defendant's Answer was not timely filed. (See Mot. Default, ECF No. 12; Mot. Suppl., ECF No. 13.) Janssen docs not dispute that the summons reflects documents were not received by Janssen's Legal Department so it inadvertently that it was served on Friday, January miscalculated the due date for the Answer. 4 4, 2019, but explains that the until Monday, January 7, 2019, (Def.'s Resp. 1, ECF No. 20.) Janssen requests that this Court set aside the technical default in filing late or, alternately, grant Janssen leave to file its answer out of time. (Id.) The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has stated that "the extreme sanction of judgment by default is reserved only for cases where the party's noncompliance represents bad faith or a complete disregard for the mandates of procedure and the authority of the trial court." Mobil Oil Co. de Venezuela tJ• Parada Jimene::;,989 F.2d 494 (rable), 1993 WL 61863, at *3 (4th Cir. 1993) (unpublished). That is not the case here. Further, "any doubts about whether relief should be granted should be resolved in favor of setting aside the default so that the case may be heard on the merits." TolJon v. Hodge, 411 F.3d 123, 130 (4th Cir. 1969). Applying the four Wi/Jon2 factors to the prospective default, this Court concludes that the extreme sanction of judgment by default is not appropriate in this case. Further, as noted by Janssen, i\Jr. Jiggetts' motion to amend his complaint effectively moots any default. See, e.g., G & G C/oJed Cirmit Et'entJ, LLC v. CaJtro & Cedil/oJ, !tl<:, Civil Action No. DKC 11-3274, 2012 \VL 748577, at *2 (D. Md. Mar. 6,2012) (mooting a motion for entry of default in light of an amended complaint); Jee aim Wahoo Int'/, In,: v. Phi:.: Dodor 1m:, No. 13cv1395- GPC(BLM), 2014 WL 6810663 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2014) ("lTlhe Court concludes that default judgment cannot be entered against a defendant in default on the original complaint which is superseded by an amended complaint."). 2 IViiron v. Volkswagen if Am., Inc., 561 F.2d 494, 503.04 (4th Cir. 1977), mt. denied. 434 U.S. 1020 (1978) (identifying four factors that are relevant in considering whether a party's discovery violations warrant the sanction of judgment by default: (1) whether the noncomplying party acted in bad faith; (2) the amount of prejudice caused by his noncompliance (which necessarily includes an inquiry into the materiality of the evidence he failed to produce); (3) the need for deterrence of the particular sort of noncompliance; and (4) the effectiveness of less drastic sanctions). 5 l\ccordingly, l\lr. jiggetts' Request for Default judgement (ECF No. 12) is DENIED. Leave to Amend II. Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides the general rules for amending pleadings. Specifically, Rule 15(a) requires that, after a responsive pleading is served, a plaintiff may amend his complaint "by leave of court or by written consent of the adverse party." In general, leave to amend a complaint pursuant to Rule 15(a) shall be "freely" granted "when justice so requires." Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2); see roman IJ. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); v. Pn'nce Ge01;ge'sCounty, 199 F. Supp. 2d 297, 300-01 (D. Md. 2002). The matter, however, LaI1l~ is committed to the discretion of the district court, and the district judge may deny leave to amend "when the amendment would be prejudicial to the opposing party, the modng has acted in bad faith, or the amendment 602 F.3d 597,603 ./ISSO,)"., would be futile." Equal Rights Center tJ• party Niles Bolton (4th Cit. 2010); see also Simmons v. United Mortg. & I--Oan!nv., IJ~C, 634 F.3d 754, 769 (4th Cit. 2011). janssen does not oppose this motion, although it reselTes its rights with respect to its response to the amended complaint, including its right to file a l\Iotion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint (or portions of it) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12. (Def.'s Resp. 1, ECF No. 28.) This Court notes however, that Mr. jiggetts' to his Complaint proposed amended complaint is, in essence, a supplement Complaint. (See ECF Nos. 22,22-1.) Complaint. (Mot. Withdraw, ECF No. 25.) This Court considers this motion a further request Further, Mr.jiggetts rather than a replacement of his also seeks to withdraw part of his to amend his Complaint, and liberally construing his requests, shall allow both the additions and withdrawals. 6 Accordingly, this Court shall GRANT Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to Pile Amended Complaint (ECF No. 22) and Motion to Withdraw Parts of Complaint that are Incorrect (ECF No. 25). However, Mr. jiggetts' represent the operative complaint. amendment, proposed amended complaint, ECP No. 22-1, does not Rather, it is a compilation of the Complaint, the proposed and the withdrawals that would form the operative complaint. Court shall require Mr. Jiggetts to me a proposed and accepted by this Court, the Defendant amended complaint Therefore, this for filing. Once filed shall have 14 days to respond pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(3) and Local Rule 103 (6)(a). Mr. Jiggetts did not name janssen's CEO, although he wishes to add the individual as a defendant. Therefore, (See ECF Nos. 22, 22-1.) if necessary, this Court directs j anssen to provide the name in its responsive Answer or Motion. Purther,janssen's deadline for filing a summary judgment motion, should it wish to do so, shall be extended to the same deadline, 14 days after the amended complaint is deemed filed. III. Reply to Answer Mr. Jiggetts seeks leave to me a response to janssen's Answer (ECF NO.1 0). (Mot. Reply, ECP No. 31.) This Court is allowing Mr. Jiggetts to file an Amended Complaint, which Defendants shall be allowed to Answer in due course. ,\ccordingly, Mr. jiggetts' Motion for Leave of Court to file a Response/Reply to Answer (ECF No. 31) is DENIED MOOT. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons: 1. to Request for Default judgement 7 (ECP No. 12) is DENIED. I\S 2. Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint (ECF No. 22) is GRANTED, and Motion to Withdraw Parts of Complaint that are Incorrect (ECF No. 25) is GRANTED. a. Plaintiff shall file a Proposed Amended Complaint within 10 days. b. Defendant shall respond within 14 days after the Amended Complaint is deemed fJled. 3. Motion for Leave of Court to File a Response/Reply to Answer (ECF No. 31) is DENIED AS MOOT. 4. The Clerk of this Court shall transmit a copy of this Memorandum Order to Plaintiff and to Counsel of record. Dated: September 9, 2019. /Ut.fJ.~ Richard D. Bennett United States DistrictJudge 8

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.