Healey v. Barr Laboratories, Inc. et al, No. 8:2012cv03011 - Document 54 (D. Md. 2013)
Court Description: OPINION. Signed by Judge J. Frederick Motz on 3/29/13. (mps, Deputy Clerk)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MARYLAND CHAMBERS OF 101 WEST LOMBARD STREET BALTIMORE, MARYLAND 21201 (410) 962-0782 (410) 962-2698 FAX J. FREDERICK MOTZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE March 29, 2013 MEMO TO COUNSEL RE: Catherine Healey v. Barr Laboratories Civil No. JFM-12-3011 Dear Counsel: I have reviewed plaintiff s response to my March 20, 2013 order. I believe that plaintiff s claim against defendant Andrea L. Roderiquez is untimely under Maryland law and that significant Erie problems would be presented if I were to permit the relation back rule of Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 to resuscitate the claim against Ms. Roderiquez. Cf. Knauer v. Johns-Manville Corp., 638 F. Supp. 1369 (D. Md. 1986). Moreover, it seems to me, particularly in light of the fact that I have already (with the consent of the other defendants) permitted plaintiff to amend her complaint, that the most prudent course to follow is to remand the case and let the timeliness issue be addressed by the Circuit Court for Prince George s County, Maryland. Accordingly, I am today entering an order remanding this action to the Circuit Court for Prince George s County, Maryland. Despite the informal nature of this letter, it should be flagged as an opinion and docketed as an order. Very truly yours, /s/ J. Frederick Motz United States District Judge
]]>
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.
