Bain et al v. AstraZeneca LP et al

Filing 69

ORDER REQUIRING THE MULLIGAN LAW FIRM TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL NOTICE TO PLAINTIFFS REGARDING THE RENEWED MOTIONS TO WITHDRAW. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on November 14, 2012. (cwlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/14/2012)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

LISA BAIN, et al.,

5

7

ASTRAZENECA, LP, et al.,

8

Defendants.
________________________________/

ORDER REQUIRING
THE MULLIGAN LAW
FIRM TO PROVIDE
ADDITIONAL NOTICE
TO PLAINTIFFS
REGARDING THE
RENEWED MOTIONS TO
WITHDRAW

LISA SAUNDERS, et al.,

No. C 09-4148 CW

6

9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Plaintiffs,

No. C 09-4147 CW

v.

Plaintiffs,

11
12
13

v.
ASTRAZENECA, LP, et al.,

14

Defendants.
________________________________/

15

KIMBERLY KESSLER, et al.,

16
17

No. C 09-4149 CW

Plaintiffs,
v.

18

ASTRAZENECA, LP, et al.,

19

Defendants.
________________________________/

20
21

CYNTHIA ARNOLD, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

22
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

DONALD BATES, et al.,

2

Plaintiffs,

3
4

v.
ASTRAZENECA, LP, et al.,

5

Defendants.

6

________________________________/

7

CAROLYN HARRISON, et al.,

8
9
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

No. C 09-4150 CW

No. C 09-4151 CW

Plaintiffs,
v.
ASTRAZENECA, LP, et al.,

11

Defendants.

12

________________________________/

13

TODD BOGGIS, et al.,

14
15
16

No. C 09-4159 CW

Plaintiffs,
v.
ASTRAZENECA, LP, et al.,

17

Defendants.

18

________________________________/

19

ANTONIO BURTON, et al.,

20
21
22
23
24

No. C 09-4162 CW

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

25
26
27
28
3

1

GLORIA MILLER, et al.,

2
3
4

Plaintiffs,
v.
ASTRAZENECA, LP, et al.,

5

Defendants.

6

________________________________/

7

BONG NGYUEN, et al.,

8
9
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

No. C 09-4163 CW

Plaintiffs,
v.
ASTRAZENECA, LP, et al.,

11
12
13

No. C 09-4166 CW

Defendants.
________________________________/
On November 7 and 8, 2012, the Court vacated the pending

14

motions to withdraw as counsel for certain Plaintiffs in the

15

above-captioned cases and granted counsel leave to renew the

16

motions by Tuesday, November 13, 2012.

17

December 12, 2012 as the hearing date for any renewed motion to

18

withdraw.

19

motion proof that they had served notice of the motion upon

20

Plaintiffs and include as an exhibit a copy of the notice

21

provided.

22

Plaintiffs, among other things, of how and by when they may file

23

an opposition and when and where the hearing on the motion to

24

withdraw would take place.

25

The Court set Wednesday,

The Court ordered that counsel file with any renewed

The Court required that, in the notice, counsel inform

On November 13, 2012, both the Miller Firm and the Mulligan

26

Law Firm filed renewed motions to withdraw.

27

the Mulligan Law Firm refiled its renewed motions.

28
4

On November 14, 2012,

1

On November 13 and 14, 2012 and, the Mulligan Law Firm filed

2

identical copies of the notice it provided to Plaintiffs.

In this

3

notice, the Mulligan Law Firm incorrectly informed Plaintiffs that

4

the hearing on the motions to withdraw will take place on December

5

13, 2012 instead of on December 12, 2012.

6

also did not tell Plaintiffs how they may file an opposition.

The Mulligan Law Firm

7

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows:

8

The Court extends, until Monday, December 3, 2012, the

9

deadline for Plaintiffs represented by the Mulligan Law Firm to

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

file oppositions to the motions to withdraw.

11

the deadline for the Mulligan Law Firm to file a reply as

12

Wednesday, December 5, 2012.

13

The Court maintains

By Thursday, November 15, 2012, the Mulligan Law Firm shall

14

send an additional notice to Plaintiffs, by overnight mail.

15

additional notice shall clearly state at least the following

16

items: (1) that the prior notice incorrectly stated the date of

17

the hearing on the motion to withdraw; (2) the correct date and

18

time for the hearing; (3) that the Court has extended the date for

19

Plaintiffs to file an opposition to the motion to withdraw;

20

(4) the new deadline for Plaintiffs to file an opposition; and

21

(5) what steps Plaintiffs must take to file an opposition.

22

example regarding the last of these, the Mulligan Law Firm should

23

refer to the notice sent by the Miller Firm to its clients.

24

e.g., Docket No. 63-2 in Case No. 09-4149, 2:1-6.

25
26
27
28
5

The

For an

See,

1

By Friday, November 16, 2012, the Mulligan Law Firm shall

2

file with the Court a copy of the additional notice and proof of

3

service upon Plaintiffs by overnight mail.

4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
6
7

Dated: November 14, 2012

CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6