Bolwell et al v. Pfizer Inc.

Filing 14

ORDER regarding remaining plaintiffs and setting further CMC. Signed by Judge Charles R. Breyer on 10/28/2011. (beS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/31/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

11
12

IN RE: BEXTRA AND CELEBREX
MARKETING SALES PRACTICES AND
PRODUCT LIABILITY LITIGATION

CASE NO. 05-CV-01699 CRB

This Document Relates To:

ORDER REGARDING REMAINING
PLAINTIFFS AND SETTING FURTHER
CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

MDL No. 1699

13
14
15
16
17
18

John Bolwell
Alane Davis
Charles C. Foti, Jr. et al.
Jack Andrews
Thelma Andrews
Louise M. Porac
Health Care Service Corp.

05-3902 CRB
05-3902 CRB
06-0157 CRB
06-2713 CRB
06-2713 CRB
06-6779 CRB
11-0310 CRB

19
20

Pursuant to the case management conference (“CMC”) held in this litigation on October

21

14, 2011, the Court hereby ORDERS as follows:

22

1.

23

Jack & Thelma Andrews, Case No. 06-2713 CRB – Dismissed with Prejudice
On August 24, 2011, this Court issued an Order to Show Cause Why Plaintiffs Should

24

Not Be Dismissed for Lack of Prosecution (“the OSC”). The OSC required counsel for the

25

above-captioned Plaintiffs (or Plaintiffs themselves, if they are pro se) to: (1) notify the Court in

26

writing on or before October 4, 2011 of the reasons the case should not be dismissed and to

27

provide a copy of any such communication to counsel for the Pfizer Defendants and Plaintiffs’

28

Liaison Counsel; and (2) appear in person at the CMC to show cause as to why Plaintiffs’
-1ORDER REGARDING REMAINING PLAINTIFFS AND
SETTING FURTHER CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE – M:05-CV-01699-CRB
EAST\46937189.2

1

lawsuits should not be dismissed with prejudice for a lack of prosecution. The Andrews

2

Plaintiffs, who never served Pfizer with their complaint, did not submit any written response to

3

the OSC and did not appear in person at the CMC. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the

4

OSC, their case hereby is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

5

2.

6

John Bolwell & Alane Davis, Case No. 05-3902 CRB – OSC Continued
Plaintiffs John Bolwell and Alane Davis also were subject to the OSC. Counsel for

7

Mr. Bolwell and Ms. Davis filed a written response to the OSC, appeared in person at the CMC,

8

and requested a 60-day continuance of the OSC, which he represented would be sufficient time to

9

complete the settlement process. Pfizer did not oppose that request.

10

The Court hereby finds that an extension of the OSC for 60 days is warranted for these

11

Plaintiffs. Counsel for the above-captioned Plaintiffs must appear in person at the continued

12

hearing on the OSC on December 16, 2011 at 10:00 a.m. to show cause as to why Plaintiffs’

13

lawsuits should not be dismissed with prejudice for a lack of prosecution. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41.

14

Counsel for Pfizer may appear at that hearing telephonically.

15

3.

16

Louise M. Porac, Case No. 06-6779 CRB – Briefing Schedule; OSC Continued
Plaintiff Louise Porac also was subject to the OSC. Ms. Porac previously filed a petition

17

for relief from Pretrial Order No. 8 (“PTO 8”), which established a common benefit fund to

18

compensate the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee (“PSC”) for work it performed on behalf of all

19

Plaintiffs, and she has not yet completed her settlement in light of her dispute with the PSC.

20

Ms. Porac also filed a written response to the OSC and appeared in person at the CMC.

21

The PSC responded to Ms. Porac’s petition on Friday, October 21, 2011. Ms. Porac is

22

hereby ORDERED to file a response, if any, by Friday, November 18, 2011. The Court will

23

inform the parties if it believes oral argument on Ms. Porac’s petition is warranted.

24

Because that issue is pending, the Court hereby finds that an extension of the OSC for 60

25

days is warranted for Ms. Porac as well. Ms. Porac or her counsel must appear in person at the

26

continued hearing on the OSC on December 16, 2011 at 10:00 a.m. to show cause as to why her

27

lawsuit should not be dismissed with prejudice for a lack of prosecution, if Ms. Porac has not

28

completed her settlement by that time. If Ms. Porac does complete her settlement, Pfizer is
-2ORDER REGARDING REMAINING PLAINTIFFS AND
SETTING FURTHER CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE – M:05-CV-01699-CRB
EAST\46937189.2

1

hereby ORDERED not to pay any common benefit assessment to the PSC until the Court rules on

2

Ms. Porac’s petition, at which time the Court will address the disbursement of the remaining

3

funds.

4

4.

5

Health Care Service Corporation, Case No. 11-0310 CRB – Briefing Schedule
The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML”) transferred this purchase claim

6

case to this Court in early 2011. Prior to that transfer, the Pfizer defendants had filed a motion to

7

dismiss. In light of the passage of time, the Court hereby ORDERS Pfizer to re-file its motion to

8

dismiss, as well as an updated memorandum of points and authorities, by Friday, November 18,

9

2011. Plaintiff must file an opposition, if any, by Friday, December 16, 2011. Pfizer must file a

10

reply, if any, by Tuesday, January 10, 2012. The Court will hold oral argument on Pfizer’s

11

motion on Friday, January 27, 2012 at 10:00 a.m.

12

5.

13

Charles C. Foti, Jr. et al., Case No. 06-0157 CRB – Parties to Meet & Confer
These Plaintiffs are governmental entities whose claims were not resolved in connection

14

with the purchase claim class action settlement in this litigation. The Court hereby ORDERS the

15

parties to meet and confer with respect to a discovery plan for any remaining discovery that may

16

be necessary for pretrial purposes, including but not limited to motions for summary judgment.

17

The parties shall be prepared to discuss the necessary discovery at the next CMC in this litigation,

18

which the Court hereby sets for January 27, 2012 at 10:00 a.m.

19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

S

RT

J

ER

26
27

A

H

25

. Breyer

arles R
udge Ch

NO

24

R NIA

23

HONORABLE CHARLES R.RED
ORDE BREYER
UNITED STATES O
T IS S DISTRICT JUDGE
I

FO

22

LI

Dated: ____________, 2011
October 28

UNIT
ED

21

RT
U
O

20

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

N

D IS T IC T
R

OF

C

28
-3ORDER REGARDING REMAINING PLAINTIFFS AND
SETTING FURTHER CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE – M:05-CV-01699-CRB
EAST\46937189.2