Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01754/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01754-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SHARON E. VIRAMONTES, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

PFIZER, INC., 

Defendant. 

No. 2:15-cv-1754 TLN AC (PS) 

ORDER 

 This case began as a removed diversity action alleging negligence, strict products liability 

and loss of consortium. See ECF No. 1. On February 23, 2016, the court dismissed plaintiffs’ 

claims for negligence and strict products liability “with prejudice.” ECF No. 31 at 2-3. Plaintiff 

Edward Viramontes’s claim for loss of consortium was dismissed “without prejudice,” and he 

was granted leave to amend that claim. Id. at 3. 

 On March 11, 2016, plaintiffs filed an “Amended Complaint” that re-alleged their claims 

for negligence and strict liability, notwithstanding the court’s having dismissed both of those 

claims with prejudice. See ECF No. 32. “To dismiss a claim ‘with prejudice’ means Plaintiff 

may not refile the alleged claim(s) after dismissal.” Collins v. Quintana, 2016 WL 337262 at *4, 

2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11000 at *11 (W.D. Wash. 2016). 

 The court will therefore strike the pleading since it was filed in violation of the court’s 

order. The plaintiffs are proceeding without counsel, and may not have understood that they 

Case 2:15-cv-01754-TLN-AC Document 45 Filed 06/02/16 Page 1 of 2
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

2

could not amend those claims. Accordingly, the court will not order sanctions against them. 

 For the reasons stated above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. Plaintiff’s “Amended Complaint” (ECF No. 32) is ordered STRICKEN from the 

docket; 

 2. Plaintiff Edward G. Viramontes and plaintiff Sharon E. Viramontes are both barred 

from amending their negligence claim, and they are both barred from amending their strict 

liability claim; 

 3. Plaintiff Edward G. Viramontes only, may, within 30 days from the date of this order, 

amend his claim for loss of consortium, but he may not amend any other claim. Because a pro se 

litigant who is not an attorney may not represent anyone other than herself, the amended 

complaint may not list Sharon E. Viramontes as a litigant or counsel, and it may not be signed by 

Ms. Viramontes. 

 4. Defendant’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 33) is DENIED as moot; 

 5. Defendant’s motion for sanctions (ECF No. 34) is DENIED; and 

 6. The hearing on defendants’ motion, currently scheduled for June 8, 2016, is 

VACATED. 

DATED: June 2, 2016 

 

Case 2:15-cv-01754-TLN-AC Document 45 Filed 06/02/16 Page 2 of 2