Atminsky v. Merck & Co., Inc. et al, No. 1:2008cv01019 - Document 150 (S.D.N.Y. 2016)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. Plaintiff's motion to dismiss under Rule 41(b) is denied. Pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff is ordered to personally serve the Actonel Defendants with the complaint within 14 d ays of the date of this Order. The parties are directed to appear by telephone for a status conference on November 9, 2016, at 11:00 A.M., to discuss the possibility of resolving this case before remand. SO ORDERED. re: 143 FIRST MOTION to Dism iss for Lack of Prosecution filed by Procter & Gamble Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Aventis Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Telephone Status Conference set for 11/9/2016 at 11:00 AM before Judge John F. Keenan.) (Signed by Judge John F. Keenan on 10/20/2016) (rjm).

Download PDF
Atminsky v. Merck & Co., Inc. et al Doc. 150 USDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC #: _________________ DATE FILED: 10/20/2016 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ----------------------------------------X SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK EMA AYMINSKY, -----------------------------------------------------------x In re FANNIE MAE 2008 SECURITIES Plaintiff, LITIGATION : : : -against: -----------------------------------------------------------x PROCTER & GAMBLE PHARMACEUTICALS INC. AND AVENTIS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., 08 Civ. 7831 (PAC) 08 MD 2013 (PAC) 09 Civ. 1019 (JFK) MEMORANDUM OPINION OPINION & ORDER & ORDER Defendants. HONORABLE PAUL A. CROTTY, United States District Judge: ----------------------------------------X JOHN F. KEENAN, United States District Judge: 1 Before the Court is a motion by Defendants Warner Chilcott The early years of this decade saw a boom in home financing which was fueled, among (US), LLC and Sanofi US Services Inc. 1 (the "Actonel Defendants") other things, by low interest rates and lax credit conditions. New lending instruments, such as to dismiss this case under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of subprime mortgages (high credit risk loans) and Alt-A mortgages (low-documentation loans) For the reasons set Civil Procedure for failure to prosecute. kept the boom going. Borrowers played a role too; they took on unmanageable risks on the forth below, the motion is denied. assumption that the market would continue to rise and that refinancing options would always be Plaintiff Ema Ayminsky originally filed this case in the available in the future. Lending discipline was lacking in the system. Mortgage originators did U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia against not hold these high-risk mortgage loans. Rather than carry the rising risk on their books, the Merck & Co., Inc. ("Merck") and Procter & Gamble Pharmaceuticals originators sold their loans into the secondary mortgage market, often as securitized packages Inc., alleging that her use of the prescription drugs Fosamax known as mortgage-backed securities (“MBSs”). MBS markets grew almost exponentially. and Actonel caused her to develop osteonecrosis of the jaw. On But then the housing bubble burst. In 2006, the demand for housing dropped abruptly December 14, 2007, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint in the and home prices began to fall. In light of the changing housing market, banks modified their lending practices and became unwilling to refinance home mortgages without refinancing. 1 Warner Chilcott (US), LLC is the successor in interest to Procter & Gamble Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Sanofi US Services Inc. 1 Unless otherwise indicated, all references cited as “(¶ _)” or to the “Complaint”is to the Amended Complaint, (formerly known as sanofi-aventis U.S. Inc.) are the successorJune 22,interest to of this Motion, Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Seetaken as true. dated in 2009. For purposes Aventis all allegations in the Amended Complaint are Defs.' Mem. at 1.) 1 1 Dockets.Justia.com Eastern District of Virginia adding Aventis Pharmaceuticals, Inc., the other Actonel Defendant. On December 20, 2007, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation entered a conditional transfer order transferring Plaintiff's Fosamax-related claims to this Court as a member of In re: Fosamax Products Liab. Litig., No. 06-MD-1789 (the "MDL"), but separating and simultaneously remanding the Actonelrelated claims to the Eastern District of Virginia. The Actonel Defendants opposed the transfer, arguing that the claims against them should also be transferred to this Court. With the consent of counsel for both Merck and the Actonel Defendants, Plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal in the Eastern District of Virginia action and re-filed the case in this Court on January 31, 2008. The parties agree that the Actonel Defendants were never served with the complaint after the re-filing in this Court. The case was accepted as a member of the MDL on February 15, 2008. Following several bellwether trials and the execution of a March 24, 2014 Master Settlement Agreement, Plaintiff and Merck entered into a stipulated dismissal of Plaintiff's Fosamaxrelated claims, which the Court entered on August 21, 2015. (Stipulation and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice, ECF No. 138.) On June 14, 2016, the Court held a status conference, with counsel for both sides appearing, to address Plaintiff's 2 Actonel-related claims. With leave of court, on July 1, 2016, the Actonel Defendants filed the instant motion to dismiss under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute. The Actonel Defendants argue that Rule 41(b) dismissal of Plaintiff's Actonel-related claims is warranted because Plaintiff abandoned those claims by failing to serve the Actonel Defendants or prosecute her Actonel-related claims after the case was filed in this Court. 41(b) Mindful that dismissal under Rule is a "harsh remedy to be utilized only in extreme situations," U.S. ex rel. Drake v. Norden Sys., Inc., 375 F.3d 248, 254 (2d Cir. 2004), the Court disagrees. As no scheduling order was entered with respect to Plaintiff's Actonel-related claims, it would not have been unreasonable for Plaintiff's counsel to conclude that those claims would be addressed following the resolution of Plaintiff's Fosamax-related claims, which were the basis for this case's inclusion in the MDL. While approximately 10 months elapsed between the dismissal of Plaintiff's Fosamax-related claims and the June 14, 2016 conference, Plaintiff did not violate any court orders and was not warned that further delay would result in dismissal. Under the circumstances, the Court finds that Plaintiff's right to have her claims decided on the merits outweighs any congestion to the Court's calendar or prejudice to the Actonel Defendants 3 from allowing the case to proceed. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to dismiss under Rule 41(b) is denied. Pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff is ordered to personally serve the Actonel Defendants with the complaint within 14 days of the date of this Order. The parties are directed to appear by telephone for a status conference on November 9, 2016, at 11:00 A.M., to discuss the possibility of resolving this case before remand. SO ORDERED. Dated: New York, New York October 20, 2016 JOHN F. KEENAN United States District Judge 4

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.