X hits on this document

21 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

1 / 10

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

ROSE THOMPSON, Plaintiff

v.

MERCK & CO., INC., et al., Defendants

: : : : : : :

CIVIL ACTION

NO. 01-1004

MEMORANDUM

STENGEL, J.

January 11, 2007

Following a two year break in activity, I granted the defendants’ unopposed

motion to dismiss this employment discrimination case without prejudice for failure to

prosecute. Plaintiff Rose Thompson now brings a motion through her previous counsel1

to reopen the case. For the following reasons, I will grant the plaintiff’s motion in its

entirety.

I.

BACKGROUND

This case was brought as one of several discrimination suits against Merck,2 and

followed the original suit, Julius Webb, et al. v. Merck & Co., Inc., et al., No. 99-0413,

filed in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Thompson filed the case as a class action,

1 On May 24, 3006, I granted counsel’s unopposed motion for leave to withdraw which cited repeated unsuccessful attempts to contact Thompson. (Document #19). Defendants’ motion to dismiss followed shortly thereafter. (Document #22).

2 On the date she filed suit, Thompson was employed by Merck-Medco Rx Services of Nevada, Inc., which was a wholly-owned subsidiary of defendant Merck-Medco Managed Care, LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of defendant Merck & Co., Inc. Defendants allege that Merck- Medco Managed Care is no longer a subsidiary of defendant Merck, and that Merck-Medco was not properly served in this case. See Def’s Memorandum of Law in Support of its Response at 2.

Document info
Document views21
Page views21
Page last viewedThu Dec 08 06:12:59 UTC 2016
Pages10
Paragraphs178
Words2011

Comments