Bain et al v. AstraZeneca LP et al

Filing 55

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken ORDER GRANTING(51 in case 4:09-cv-04158-CW; 47 in case 4:09-cv-04148-CW; 49 in case 4:09-cv-04149-CW; 54 in case 4:09-cv-04147-CW; 57 in case 4:09-cv-04157-CW; 49 in case 4:09-cv-04161-CW; 48 in case 4:09-cv-04165-CW; 44 in case 4:10-cv-00288-CW; 41 in case 4:10-cv-00289-CW) JOINT MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND TO EXTEND TIME TO FINALIZE REMAINING CLAIMS AND CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/26/2012)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

LISA BAIN, et al.,

5
6

Plaintiffs,
v.

7

ASTRAZENECA, LP, et al.,

8

Defendants.
________________________________/

9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

LISA SAUNDERS, et al.,

14

ORDER GRANTING
JOINT MOTION FOR
AN ORDER TO SHOW
CAUSE AND TO
EXTEND TIME TO
FINALIZE REMAINING
CLAIMS AND
CONTINUING CASE
MANAGEMENT
CONFERENCE
No. C 09-4148 CW

Plaintiffs,

12
13

No. C 09-4147 CW

v.
ASTRAZENECA, LP, et al.,

15

Defendants.
________________________________/

16

KIMBERLY KESSLER, et al.,

17
18

No. C 09-4149 CW

Plaintiffs,
v.

19

ASTRAZENECA, LP, et al.,

20

Defendants.
________________________________/

21
22

CYNTHIA ARNOLD, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

23
24
25
26
27
28

v.
ASTRAZENECA, LP, et al.,
Defendants.
________________________________/

No. C 09-4157 CW

1

ANGEL COLON, et al.,

2
3

Plaintiffs,
v.

4

ASTRAZENECA, LP, et al.,

5

Defendants.
________________________________/

6
7

MARK COFFEY, et al.,

9
10

No. C 09-4161 CW

Plaintiffs,

8

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

No. C 09-4158 CW

v.
ASTRAZENECA, LP, et al.,

11

Defendants.
________________________________/

12

SHARON DISTON, et al.,

13
14

No. C 09-4165 CW

Plaintiffs,
v.

15

ASTRAZENECA, LP, et al.,

16

Defendants.
________________________________/

17
18

DAMON BROWN, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

19
20
21

No. C 10-0288 CW

v.
ASTRAZENECA, LP, et al.,

22

Defendants.
________________________________/

23

DENNIS O’BRIEN, et al.,

24
25

No. C 10-0289 CW

Plaintiffs,
v.

26

ASTRAZENECA, LP, et al.,

27

Defendants.
________________________________/

28

2

1

The Miller Firm filed the above-captioned actions on behalf

2

of 418 Plaintiffs alleging injuries from their ingestion of the

3

pharmaceutical drug, Seroquel.

4

that it has entered into a Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) with

5

Defendants as to most cases involving Plaintiffs represented by

6

Plaintiffs’ counsel.

7

stipulated dismissals of the claims brought by 306 of the

8

Plaintiffs.

9

Plaintiffs’ counsel represents

On September 21, 2012, the parties filed

On September 20 and 21, 2012, Plaintiffs’ counsel indicated

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

that seventy-seven Plaintiffs listed in Exhibit B to the September

11

20 report have failed to respond to counsel’s extensive efforts to

12

contact them and have not indicated whether they will or will not

13

participate in the MSA according to its terms.1

14

for an order to show cause why claims brought by these Plaintiffs

15

should not be dismissed with prejudice.

16

The parties move

Having considered the papers filed by the parties, the Court

17

ORDERS the Plaintiffs listed in Exhibit B to show cause, within

18

twenty-one days of the date of this Order, why their cases should

19

not be dismissed with prejudice.

20

have new counsel appear before this Court on their behalf, or may

21

communicate with counsel regarding their agreement to or rejection

22

of the MSA.

Alternatively, Plaintiffs may

Plaintiffs are admonished that if they fail to comply

23
24
1

25
26
27
28

Exhibit B to the September 20, 2012 status report listed
seventy-nine Plaintiffs. Counsel indicates that Christopher
Linville, who is not a named Plaintiff in any of the above
captioned cases, was erroneously included. The parties have
already stipulated to dismiss the claims brought by Plaintiff
Denita Jackson, who was also included in Exhibit B. Accordingly,
in this Order, references to the Plaintiffs listed in Exhibit B do
not include Jackson and Linville.
3

1

with the terms of this order, their claims will be dismissed with

2

prejudice.

3

Plaintiffs’ counsel is ORDERED to provide notice of this

4

Order to the seventy-seven Plaintiffs listed in Exhibit B, based

5

on the best available contact information, and to file a

6

certification that such notice has been sent, with three days of

7

the date of this Order.

8

file, in twenty-two days from the date of this Order, a

9

declaration stating whether these Plaintiffs have since

Plaintiffs’ counsel is also ORDERED to

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

communicated with counsel regarding their agreement to or

11

rejection of the MSA.

12

The parties also seek thirty additional days to finalize the

13

participation in the MSA of twenty-nine Plaintiffs, who are listed

14

in Exhibit A to their joint motion.

15

these claims primarily involve Plaintiffs who have recently been

16

located and wish to participate in the MSA, and those acting in a

17

representative capacity for another individual.

18

their request and extends the deadline to finalize the remaining

19

claims to Monday, October 22, 2012.

20

The parties represent that

The Court GRANTS

The case management conference currently set for October 10,

21

2012 is hereby CONTINUED to November 7, 2012 at 2:00 p.m.

22

parties shall include in their case management statement, due one

23

week before the conference, a list of the remaining Plaintiffs.

24

The

IT IS SO ORDERED.

25
26
27

Dated: 9/26/2012

CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

28
4