Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-3_05-cv-00240/USCOURTS-ared-3_05-cv-00240-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

1

Doc. No. 13.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

JONESBORO DIVISION

In re: 

PREMPRO PRODUCTS LIABILITY 

LITIGATION

VELBA SUE BANKSTON

v.

WYETH, INC., et. al.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

MDL Docket No. 4:03CV1507-WRW

 3:05CV00240

PLAINTIFF

 

 

 DEFENDANTS

ORDER

Pending is Defendant Wyeth’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 11). Plaintiff has responded (Doc.

No. 13), and has requested leave to file an amended complaint.

Defendant asserts that the complaint should be dismissed because Plaintiff “does not allege to

have ingested any particular hormone therapy drug.”1

 In her response, Plaintiff admits that her complaint

is an example of the “generic, omnidirectional complaints” with which I have previously expressed

disfavor. Plaintiff requests permission to amend her complaint and has attached a copy of the proposed

amended complaint. I have reviewed the proposed amended complaint and believe it sufficiently states

claims against Defendants.

Accordingly, Defendants Motion to Dismiss is DENIED. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an

amended complaint is GRANTED, and Plaintiff is directed to file the amended complaint that was

attached to her motion as Exhibit F by 5 p.m., Friday, January 13, 2006.

 IT IS SO ORDERED this 4th day of January, 2006.

 

 /s/ Wm. R.Wilson,Jr. 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

Case 3:05-cv-00240-BRW Document 14 Filed 01/04/06 Page 1 of 1