Bates et al v. AstraZeneca LP et al
Filing
39
ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken GRANTING UNOPPOSED (42) in case 4:09-cv-04162-CW; (41) in case 4:09-cv-04164-CW; (43) in case 4:09-cv-04166-CW; (38) in case 4:09-cv-04150-CW; (43) in case 4:09-cv-04159-CW; (41) in case 4:09-cv-04160-CW; (39) in case 4:09-cv-04163-CW MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASES SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/18/2012)
1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
3
4
DONALD BATES, et al.,
No. C 09-4150 CW
5
Plaintiffs,
________________________________/
ORDER GRANTING
UNOPPOSED MOTION
FOR AN ORDER TO
SHOW CAUSE AND
ORDER TO SHOW
CAUSE WHY CASES
SHOULD NOT BE
DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE
CAROLYN HARRISON, et al.,
No. C 09-4151 CW
6
7
v.
ASTRAZENECA, LP, et al.,
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
Defendants.
11
12
13
Plaintiffs,
v.
ASTRAZENECA, LP, et al.,
14
Defendants.
15
________________________________/
16
TODD BOGGIS, et al.,
17
18
19
No. C 09-4159 CW
Plaintiffs,
v.
ASTRAZENECA, LP, et al.,
20
Defendants.
21
________________________________/
22
PAUL TRIM, et al.,
23
24
25
26
27
28
Plaintiffs,
v.
ASTRAZENECA, LP, et al.,
Defendants.
________________________________/
No. C 09-4160 CW
1
ANTONIO BURTON, et al.,
2
3
4
Plaintiffs,
v.
ASTRAZENECA, LP, et al.,
5
Defendants.
6
________________________________/
7
GLORIA MILLER, et al.,
8
9
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
No. C 09-4162 CW
No. C 09-4163 CW
Plaintiffs,
v.
ASTRAZENECA, LP, et al.,
11
Defendants.
12
________________________________/
13
BONG NGYUEN, et al.,
14
15
16
No. C 09-4166 CW
Plaintiffs,
v.
ASTRAZENECA, LP, et al.,
17
Defendants.
18
________________________________/
19
DAVID MARTIN, et al.,
20
Plaintiffs,
21
22
23
24
No. C 09-4164 CW
v.
ASTRAZENECA, LP, et al.,
Defendants.
________________________________/
25
26
27
28
2
1
Plaintiffs’ counsel moves for an order to show cause why
2
claims brought by certain Plaintiffs should not be dismissed with
3
prejudice.
4
Plaintiffs’ counsel represents that it has entered into a
5
Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) with Defendants as to all cases
6
involving Plaintiffs represented by Plaintiffs’ counsel.
7
Plaintiffs’ counsel has informed all such Plaintiffs of the MSA
8
and their right to participate in the settlement agreement
9
according to its terms.
However, certain Plaintiffs, who are
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
listed in Exhibit A to Plaintiffs’ counsel’s motion, have failed
11
to respond to indicate whether they will or will not participate
12
in the MSA, and have failed to keep in contact with their counsel.
13
Having considered the papers filed by Plaintiffs’ counsel,
14
the Court GRANTS the motion and ORDERS the Plaintiffs listed in
15
Exhibit A to show cause, within twenty-one days of the date of
16
this Order, why his or her case should not be dismissed with
17
prejudice.
18
appear before this Court on his or her behalf, or may communicate
19
with counsel regarding their agreement to the MSA.
20
admonished that if they fail to comply with the terms of this
21
order, their claims will be dismissed with prejudice.
22
Alternatively, these Plaintiffs may have new counsel
Plaintiffs are
Plaintiffs’ counsel is ORDERED to provide notice of this
23
Order to Plaintiffs listed in Exhibit A, based on the best
24
available contact information, and to file a certification that
25
such notice has been sent, with three days of the date of this
26
Order.
27
days from the date of this Order, a declaration stating whether
Plaintiffs’ counsel is also ORDERED to file, in twenty-two
28
3
1
these Plaintiffs have since communicated with counsel regarding
2
their agreement to the MSA.
3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
4
5
6
Dated: 5/18/2012
CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge
7
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
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?