Sharon v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc.
2:22-cv-00453-RFB-NJK
| D. Nev. | Mar 11, 2024Background
- Dr. Thomas Sharon, a licensed nurse practitioner, prescribed controlled substances (including Codeine) to patients with COVID-19 in Nevada.
- CVS Pharmacy contacted Dr. Sharon about the volume of such prescriptions, then imposed a company-wide block on all controlled substance prescriptions written by him.
- Dr. Sharon sued CVS in Nevada state court, asserting claims including negligence, interference with economic relations, civil conspiracy, slander per se, and injunctive relief; CVS removed to federal court.
- The Court dismissed several claims (negligence, conspiracy, injunctive relief) with prejudice and the remaining claims (interference and slander) without prejudice, instructing Dr. Sharon to file an amended complaint by April 10, 2023.
- Dr. Sharon failed to file a properly docketed amended complaint, and did not respond to CVS’s motions for summary judgment or entry of judgment.
- The Court ultimately dismissed the case with prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with Court orders.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to file amended complaint and prosecute | Claimed he attempted to file amended complaint and submitted via email | Plaintiff did not properly file or prosecute, failed to comply with deadlines and orders | Dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute |
| Sufficiency of prior pleadings | Alleged slander and interference; amended complaint added little detail | Amended complaint did not meet standards or add required detail per court’s prior instructions | No actionable claims, insufficient pleadings |
| Authenticity of emailed filings | Asserted he served filings via email to the court and counsel | Filings sent to an unmonitored email, not the method required for official court filings | Emailed filings not accepted as official documents |
| Motions for summary judgment/entry of judgment | No response to motions filed | Sought summary judgment and entry of final judgment after missed deadlines | Motions denied as moot due to dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of L.A., 782 F.2d 829 (9th Cir. 1986) (district courts have inherent power to control their dockets, including dismissal)
- Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (1962) (courts may dismiss cases for want of prosecution)
- Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal should only be imposed in extreme circumstances)
- Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258 (9th Cir. 1992) (court must provide notice of deficiencies before dismissing pro se complaints)
- Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128 (9th Cir. 1987) (plaintiff's delay and failure to prosecute may prejudice defendants)