Bowles, et al v. Wyeth Inc, et al

Filing 65

ORDER Relating to The Parties' 64 Joint Status Report, signed by Judge Joseph R. Goodwin on 7/5/2012. (It is ORDERED that the parties shall file a joint motion to dismiss within 30 days of entry of this order. If the parties do not file a joint motion to dismiss within 30 days, the court will enter a new scheduling order in this matter with court chosen deadlines, including a trial date in the coming months.)(Gaumnitz, R)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
FRESNO DIVISION

2
3
4

NANCY WADDELL,

5
6
Plaintiff,

7
8
9

vs.
WYETH LLC, et al.
Defendants.

10
11

KAY UHALT and STEPHEN UHALT,

12
13
Plaintiffs,

14
15

vs.
WYETH LLC, et al.

16
17

Defendants.

18
19

DOROTHY SETSER and HOWARD SETSER,

20
Plaintiffs,

21
22
23

vs.
WYETH LLC, et al.
Defendants

24
25
26
27

CAROL HILL and LEONARD HILL
Plaintiffs,

28
vs.

)
Case No.: 1:04-cv-06343-JRG-DLB
)
)
ORDER RELATING TO THE
)
PARTIES’ JOINT STATUS REPORT
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
) Case No.: 1:10-cv-02404-JRG-DLB
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
) Case No.: 1:10-cv-02405-JRG-DLB
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: 1:10-cv-02394-JRG-DLB
)
)
)
)

1

WYETH LLC. et al

)
)
)
)
)

Defendants.

2
3
4
5

)
Case No.: 1:10-cv-02395-JRG-DLB
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

MARIANNE PHILLIPS and WILLIAM
PHILLIPS,

6
Plaintiffs,

7
8
9

vs.
WYETH LLC, et al.

10

Defendants.

11
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
vs.
WYETH LLC, et al.

16
Defendants.

17
18

BETTY CRAVEN and GEORGE CRAVEN,

19
20
21
22

Plaintiffs,
vs.
WYETH LLC, et al.

23
Defendants.

24
25

SHIRLEY BOWLES and GERALD BOWLES,

26
27
28

Case No.: 1:10-cv-02384-JRG-DLB

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

GLORIETTE MCPHERSON,

Case No.: 1:10-cv-02382-JRG-DLB

)
) Case No.: 1:04-cv-06346-JRG-DLB
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiffs,
vs.
WYETH LLC, et al.
2

)
)
)
)
Case No.: 1:10-cv-02392-JRG-DLB
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1
2

Defendants.

3

DONNA HAMES and MICHAEL HAMES

4
5
6

Plaintiffs,
vs.
WYETH LLC, et al.

7
8

Defendants.

9
10

)
) Case No.: 1:10-cv-02397-JRG-DLB
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

VICTORIA POOLE and DELBERT POOLE

11
Plaintiffs,

12
13
14

vs.
WYETH LLC, et al.

15

Defendants.

16
17

)
Case No.: 1:10-cv-00287-JRG-DLB
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: 1:10-cv-00289-JRG-DLB
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

LOIS ZANYK

18
Plaintiff,

19
20
21

vs.
PFIZER INC., et al.

22

Defendants.

23
24

CARLEEN WEST

25
26
27

Plaintiff,
vs.
PFIZER INC., et al.

28
3

Defendants.

1

)
)
Case No.: 1:10-cv-00288-JRG-DLB
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2
PAMELA TURNER

3
Plaintiff,

4
vs.

5
6

PFIZER INC., et al.

7

Defendants.

8
9

)
Case No.: 1:10-cv-00282-JRG-DLB
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

LUCILLE MACIAS

10
Plaintiff,

11
vs.

12
13

PFIZER INC., et al.

14

Defendants.

15
16

I have considered the Joint Status Report [ECF 55] filed by the parties in these actions.

17
18
19

The parties state that they need 30 to 60 days to finalize the resolution of these cases and,
therefore, propose a deadline of 60 days in which to file a joint motion to dismiss the above cases,
or, in the alternative, file a joint status report informing the court as to the status of resolution of

20

the cases. I find the parties’ proposal unacceptable. As I indicated at a status conference on

21

December 9, 2011, “these cases are seven years old .... There have been orders entered … and

22

they’ve all been extended two or three times.” [1:04-cv-06343-JRG-DLB, ECF 36, pp. 5, 8.] I

23

stated very clearly that “this process stops today. We’re going to set a firm scheduling order and

24
25

we’re going to take these cases to trial.” Id. at 8. On January 20, 2012, I entered a scheduling
order in these cases, setting trials to begin on October 22, 2012. [1:04-cv-06343-JRG-DLB, ECF
46.]

26

In April of 2012, the parties advised me the cases had settled and that they requested

27

vacation of the scheduling order and 60 days to set a status conference. By order entered April

28

24, 2012, I vacated all trial and pre-trial deadlines in the above actions and ordered the parties to
4

1
2
3

file a joint status report within 60 days informing me as to the resolution of these cases, or in the
alternative, to file a joint motion to dismiss. [ECF 54.] The parties now seek an additional 60
days within which to file a joint motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, file a joint status report
informing me as to the status of resolution.

4

In light of the number of delays in these cases preceding settlement, the representation by

5

the parties in April, 2012, that these matters have settled, and the fact that the parties have already

6

requested one extension, which I granted, I am not willing to extend this matter out further. It is

7

ORDERED that the parties shall file a joint motion to dismiss within 30 days of entry of this

8

order. If the parties do not file a joint motion to dismiss within 30 days, the court will enter a new
scheduling order in this matter with court chosen deadlines, including a trial date in the coming

9
10

months.
ENTER: July 5, 2012

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5