Lewis v. Abbott Laboratories

S.D. New York

Lewis v. Abbott Laboratories

DecidedApril 1, 2020

Docket1:08-cv-07480

StatusUnknown

This text of Lewis v. Abbott Laboratories (Lewis v. Abbott Laboratories) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lewis v. Abbott Laboratories, (S.D.N.Y. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

ee __IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 0.00 1... □ FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK og ~~ □ LEWIS Plaintiff's Rule 52 Motion = & Plaintiff, -Q8Civ.7480 (SCR) (GAY) | mm — □□ v. — On ooo ABBOTT LABORATORIES et al 2 ms = oO Defendants, Se □□

The Court must accept as true the facts alleged in the complaint and must construe such facts in the light most favorable to the pleader. See Reynolds v. Army & Air Force Exch. Serv., 846 F.2d 746, 747 (Fed. Cir. 1988); Henke v. United States, 60 F.3d 795, 797 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (holding that courts are obligated “to draw all reasonable inferences in plaintiff's favor”). Therefore, since the court did not draw all reasonable inferences in plaintiff s favor the "continuing violation" doctrine overrides the statute of limitations, see Shomo v. City of New York 579 F.3d (2009); and under these circumstanced I have demonstrated extraordinary circumstances or extreme hardship, see Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944). Accepted as true my facts considered in a light most favorable to me, I claim strict liability and reason for a jury to decide, see Hinckley v. La Mesa B.V. Center, Inc., 158 Cal. App.3d 630, 205 Cal. Rptr. 22 (1984). 2. The court made no finding of fact and conclusion of law as to my claims, see New York, York Mortgage Corporation vy. Clotar Const. Corp., 254 N.Y. 128, 133, 172 N.E. 265 (1930); These findings should represent the judge's own determination and not the long, often argumentative statements of successful counsel. United States v. Forness, supra, United States v. Crescent Amusement Co, (1944) 323 U.S. 173. 3. I seek damages from the liable parties for my injury caused by the defendants’ drugs in combination. significantly lowers the burden of proof for the plaintiff. Burden of proof can define the duty placed upon a party to prove or disprove a disputed fact, or it can define tic party bears this burden. { have a right to a trial before a jury. The Court's March 2, 2020 Order, Dkt. 60, denied Plaintiffs motion for reconsideratiot untimely and closed this action. The instant motion, which appears to raise similar March 12, 2020 arguments, is also denied with prejudice for the reasons stated in the March 2, 2020 Or The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motion at Dkt. 61. Defenda counsel shall mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff and file proof of such service on the « SO ORDERED. KC >

PRO Se OFFICE i 17 PHIZ 09 □□ gS

SSin

eS ne S > SoS

Ow ea

SO »

= PEPE = □□ pega?

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ee __IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 0.00 1... □ FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK og ~~ □ LEWIS Plaintiff's Rule 52 Motion = & Plaintiff, -Q8Civ.7480 (SCR) (GAY) | mm — □□ v. — On ooo ABBOTT LABORATORIES et al 2 ms = oO Defendants, Se □□

The Court must accept as true the facts alleged in the complaint and must construe such facts in the light most favorable to the pleader. See Reynolds v. Army & Air Force Exch. Serv., 846 F.2d 746, 747 (Fed. Cir. 1988); Henke v. United States, 60 F.3d 795, 797 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (holding that courts are obligated “to draw all reasonable inferences in plaintiff's favor”). Therefore, since the court did not draw all reasonable inferences in plaintiff s favor the "continuing violation" doctrine overrides the statute of limitations, see Shomo v. City of New York 579 F.3d (2009); and under these circumstanced I have demonstrated extraordinary circumstances or extreme hardship, see Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944). Accepted as true my facts considered in a light most favorable to me, I claim strict liability and reason for a jury to decide, see Hinckley v. La Mesa B.V. Center, Inc., 158 Cal. App.3d 630, 205 Cal. Rptr. 22 (1984). 2. The court made no finding of fact and conclusion of law as to my claims, see New York, York Mortgage Corporation vy. Clotar Const. Corp., 254 N.Y. 128, 133, 172 N.E. 265 (1930); These findings should represent the judge's own determination and not the long, often argumentative statements of successful counsel. United States v. Forness, supra, United States v. Crescent Amusement Co, (1944) 323 U.S. 173. 3. I seek damages from the liable parties for my injury caused by the defendants’ drugs in combination. significantly lowers the burden of proof for the plaintiff. Burden of proof can define the duty placed upon a party to prove or disprove a disputed fact, or it can define tic party bears this burden. { have a right to a trial before a jury. The Court's March 2, 2020 Order, Dkt. 60, denied Plaintiffs motion for reconsideratiot untimely and closed this action. The instant motion, which appears to raise similar March 12, 2020 arguments, is also denied with prejudice for the reasons stated in the March 2, 2020 Or The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motion at Dkt. 61. Defenda counsel shall mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff and file proof of such service on the « SO ORDERED. KC >

PRO Se OFFICE i 17 PHIZ 09 □□ gS

SSin

eS ne S > SoS

Ow ea

SO »

= PEPE = □□ pega?

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Lewis v. Abbott Laboratories, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lewis-v-abbott-laboratories-nysd-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack