Lazell v. Wyeth LLC et al

Filing 146

ORDER: The 145 Notice, treated as a motion to suspend any case processing deadlines, is denied. See order for details. Signed by Judge Neil V Wake on 6/14/12. (NKS)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Estelle Lazell,
Plaintiff,

10
11

vs.

12
Wyeth, LLC, et al.,
13
Defendants.
14

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CV 10-02660-PHX-NVW
ORDER

15
16

Before the Court is a jointly filed “Notice” (Doc. 145), which states that the parties

17

“have reached a resolution in principle of this case” and “are working on documentation

18

with respect to the resolution.” It also states that the parties “currently anticipate

19

completing the resolution later this year” and requests that the Court adjourn any pending

20

deadlines.

21

This case was filed in this District in July 2004 and transferred to the hormone

22

therapy multidistrict litigation pending in the Eastern District of Arkansas in January

23

2005. It was severed from the multidistrict litigation in November 2010 and re-filed in

24

this District in December 2010. In April 2011 the Court denied Defendants’ motion to

25

transfer cases for pretrial coordination of the 43 hormone therapy cases then pending in

26

this District, stating:

27
28

After almost seven years of litigation, each of the plaintiffs in the
cases remanded from MDL 1507 is entitled to prompt, efficient completion
of case-specific discovery and briefing and determination of pretrial

1

motions. . . . These cases now need to be brought to trial as quickly as
possible and each case on its own terms.

2
The Scheduling Order issued in this case stated:
3

6

The parties are encouraged to discuss settlement at all times during
the pendency of the litigation. The Court will not, however, extend the case
processing deadlines because the parties wish to avoid litigation expense if
and when they elect to pursue settlement efforts, including a settlement
conference before a magistrate judge. The parties should plan their
settlement efforts accordingly.

7

The Scheduling Order also stated that the deadlines are real and will be enforced and

8

repeated the warning that case processing deadlines will not be extended if and when the

9

parties elected to pursue settlement efforts.

4
5

10

The Notice is an unlabeled motion to suspend the case processing deadlines for six

11

months even though no binding settlement has been made. It will therefore be denied, and

12

no delay of any deadline will be granted unless the parties jointly advise in writing that a

13

legally binding settlement has been made (even if further documentation is needed), such that

14

there is no prospect that any request will be made to resume the litigation. The parties are

15

encouraged to pursue settlement.

16

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Notice (Doc. 145), treated as a motion to

17

suspend any case processing deadlines, is denied.

18

DATED this 14th day of June, 2012.

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-