In re: Just for Men Mass Tort Litigation

Filing 2

Case Coordination ORDER. Signed by Judge David R. Herndon on 6/27/16. (klh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
______________________________________________________________________________
IN RE: Just For Men® Mass Tort Litigation
Case No. 3:16-cv-00638-DRH
Master Docket – In Re: Just For
Men® Mass Tort Litigation
______________________________________________________________________________
This Document Relates to:
ALL Just for Men® Cases
CASE COORDINATION ORDER
DAVID R. HERNDON, Judge:
On June 9, 2016, the Court held a status conference in Davis v. Combe
Incorporated, et al. (3:16-cv-169 – hereinafter “Davis”), Lindsey, et al. v. Combe
Incorporated, et al. (3:16-cv-223 – hereinafter “Lindsey”), Martin, et al. v. Combe
Incorporated, et al. (3:16-cv-227 – hereinafter “Martin”), Brownlee, et al. v.
Combe Incorporated, et al. (3:16-cv-228 – hereinafter “Brownlee”), Brim, et al. v.
Combe Incorporated, et al. (3:16-cv-229 – hereinafter “Brim”), and Lasley, et al.
v. Combe Incorporated, et al. (3:16-cv-232 – hereinafter “Lasley”), and pursuant
to this Court’s Orders of May 24, 2016, required that Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs
and Defendants personally appear.
The Court presided over suggestions of counsel regarding a joint proposal
to coordinate certain pretrial matters of the substantial number of presently filed

cases, as well as any future cases, alleging injuries from use of Defendants’
marketed products known as the line of Just for Men® hair coloring products.
The Court concludes that the interests of judicial economy will be served by
coordinating all pretrial matters in the Just for Men® cases. Therefore, the Court
ORDERS AS FOLLOWS1:
1.

Applicability of Order. The provisions of this Order (and of future

orders applicable to “All Cases”) shall govern the practice and procedure in those
actions that are pending in this Court which are identified on Attachment A and
known as the Just for Men cases. This Order shall be filed in each of those cases,
and will also apply to any future Just for Men cases that arrive in this Court.
2.

Coordination. These civil actions identified in Attachment A shall be

coordinated for discovery and certain pretrial purposes. Any related cases which
are later filed in, removed to or transferred to this Court, or any related actions
directly filed in the Southern District of Illinois, prior to the entry of this Order or
after, will automatically be coordinated with this action without the necessity of
future motions. This Order shall be filed in any future case identifying it as part of
the Just for Men® coordinated litigation. This coordination, however, does not
constitute a determination in any respect that the actions should be coordinated
or consolidated for trial.

1

Defendants have filed motions to dismiss in all cases based on multiple grounds, including lack of personal
jurisdiction for certain plaintiffs. These motions remain pending and will be addressed in the future. Nothing in this
Order should be construed in any way to limit Defendants’ ability to pursue those motions fully.

2

3.

Master Docket. The Clerk of this Court will maintain a Master

Docket which shall be designated as follows:
Case No. 3:16-cv-00638-DRH
Master Docket – In Re: Just for Men® Mass Tort Litigation
The Clerk of this Court shall place this Order and any subsequent Case
Management Orders in the “In Re: Just for Men® Mass Tort Litigation,” Master
Docket Case No. 3:16-cv-00638-DRH.

As set forth in more detail below, the

Master Docket will only include documents relating to “All Cases.” All orders,
pleadings, motions, and other documents will, when filed and docketed in the
Master Docket, be deemed filed and docketed in each individual case.
4.

Filing Procedures.

The filing of pleadings and documents in this

Master Docket shall be limited to filings made by Co-Lead Counsel and Liaison
Counsel for Plaintiffs and by Lead Counsel and Liaison Counsel for Defendants.
No other counsel of record shall file any pleadings or documents directly in the
Master Docket, and any attempt to do so, will not be accepted for filing by this
Court. All documents filed in this Court, subsequent to those initiating a new
case, must be filed electronically pursuant to this Court’s E-Filing Rules and the
CM/ECF User’s Manual. Attorneys may register for electronic filing at
http://www.ilsd.uscourts.gov/ecf/ecfAttyRegistration.aspx.
a.

Master Docket Filings. When a pleading is intended to be

applicable to all actions, this shall be indicated by the words: “This

3

Document Relates to All Just for Men® Cases.” Documents relating to All
Cases shall be filed in the Master Docket Case only.
b.

Case-Specific Documents. All case specific pleadings and

documents must be filed in the individual case action only, and not in the
Master Docket Case.
5.

Notice of Electronic Filing. With regard to case-specific filings, all

attorneys of record in the relevant member action will receive a Notice of
Electronic Filing (“NEF”) from the Court. With regard to documents filed in
the Master Docket Case, only those attorneys identified in the Master
Docket Case as being counsel of record will receive an NEF from the Court.
Interested Counsel are required to enter an appearance in the Master
Docket via Liaison Counsel.
6.

Admission of Counsel. Attorneys admitted to practice and in good

standing in any United States District Court are automatically admitted pro hac
vice in this litigation and need not file a motion to be admitted pro hac vice.
Association of local co-counsel is not required.
7.

Local Rules and Procedures.

Counsel is expected to familiarize

themselves with this Court’s local rules and procedures including the following:
(a)

the Electronic Case Filing Rules
http://www.ilsd.uscourts.gov/documents/ECFRules.pdf

(b)

the CM/ECF User’s Manual
http://www.ilsd.uscourts.gov/ECF/ecfManual.aspx

4

(c)

the procedure for submission of proposed documents2
http://www.ilsd.uscourts.gov/Ecf.aspx

(d)

Judge Herndon’s Case Management Procedures
http://www.ilsd.uscourts.gov/documents/Herndon.pdf

8.

Status Conference.

The next status conference shall be held on

September 21st, 2016 at 1:30 pm and prior to such date, the Court shall appoint
leadership counsel. At such conference Plaintiffs’ Lead Counsel and Lead Counsel
for Defendants shall be prepared to report to the Court on the following matters:
(a)

Court Expectations. The Court expects Lead Counsel for

Plaintiffs and Lead Counsel for Defendants to meet in advance of the Status
Conference scheduled for September 21, 2016. Counsel shall be prepared
to discuss a plan for resolution of pending motions and a plan for
management of the litigation going forward. Counsel for the parties shall
meet and confer before the conference concerning these plans.
(b)

Communications with the Court. Unless otherwise ordered

by this Court, all substantive communications with the Court shall be in
writing, with copies to opposing counsel. Requests for specific dates and
times for hearings should not be made without prior consultation with
opposing counsel seeking agreement. Nevertheless, the Court recognizes
that cooperation by and among plaintiffs’ counsel and by and among

The Court’s local rules require that documents submitted to the Court be in a format compatible
with WordPerfect. In this Consolidated Action, however, the Court will allow the parties to submit
documents in a format that is compatible with Word.

2

5

defendants’ counsel is essential for the orderly and expeditious resolution
of this litigation. The communication of information among and between
plaintiffs’ counsel and among and between defendants’ counsel shall not be
deemed a waiver of the attorney-client privilege or the protection afforded
attorney’s work product, and cooperative efforts contemplated above shall
in no way be used against any plaintiff by any defendant or against any
defendant by any plaintiff. Nothing contained in this provision shall be
construed to limit the rights of any party or counsel to assert the attorney
client privilege or attorney work product doctrine.
(c)

List of Related Cases. Counsel shall file a supplemental

statement listing all known related cases pending in state or federal court in
the Master Docket Case no later than five (5) days in advance of the
September 21, 2016 Status Conference.
9.

Interim Lead Counsel.

Attorney Kristine K. Kraft is hereby

designated Interim Lead Counsel for All Plaintiffs re Just for Men® Cases, and
Attorney Stephen G. Strauss is hereby designated Interim Lead Counsel for
Defendant

parties

Laboratories,
10.

Combe
Inc.

Incorporated,
and

Combe

Combe

Products,

Inc.,

International

Combe
Ltd.

Lead and Liaison Counsel Appointments. The Court intends to

appoint Plaintiffs’ Lead Counsel and/or a Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee, as well as
Plaintiffs’ Liaison Counsel.

Given the small number of Plaintiffs’ counsel of

record in all the applicable cases, the Court expects counsel to make a single

6

unified proposal to this Court. The uniform proposal for Plaintiffs’ Counsel must
be submitted to the Court on or before July 1, 2016 via the Court’s proposed
documents email address ([e-mail]). In the same Order, the
Court will also appoint Liaison and Lead Counsel for Defendants. Counsel for the
Defendants should advise plaintiffs’ counsel and the Court of the specific counsel.

SO ORDERED

Digitally signed
by Judge David
R. Herndon
Date: 2016.06.27
15:54:50 -05'00'

______________________________
Honorable David R. Herndon
United States District Court Judge

7

Date: June 27, 2016

ATTACHMENT A

JUST FOR MEN® CASES
Attachment A – Cases Currently Pending in U.S.D.C., S.D. of IL
1.

Garnett Davis v. Combe Incorporated, et al.
USDC SD of IL – 3:16-cv-169 DRH-PMV

2.

Kendrick Lindsey, et al. v. Combe Incorporated, et al.
USDC SD of IL – 3:16-cv-223-DRH-PMV

3.

Demarco Martin, et al. v. Combe Incorporated, et al.
USDC SD of IL – 3:16-cv-227-DRH-PMV

4.

Renoldo Brownlee, et al. v. Combe Incorporated, et al.
USDC SD of IL – 3:16-cv-228-DRH-PMV

5.

Johnnie Brim, et al. v. Combe Incorporated, et al.
USDC SD of IL – 3:16-cv-229-DRH-PMV

6.

Donivan Lasley, et al. v. Combe Incorporated, et al.
USDC SD of IL – 3:16:-cv-232-DRH-PMV

7.

Christopher McCray et al. v. Combe Incorporated et al.
USDC SD of IL – 3:16-cv-474-DRH

8.

Sydney Shamburger, et al. v. Combe Incorporated, et al.
USDC SD of IL – 3:16-cv-478

9.

Henry Hairston, et al. v. Combe Incorporated, et al.
USDC SD of IL – 3:16-cv-609-DRH

10.

Sylvester Washington, et al. v. Combe Incorporated, et al.
USDC SD of IL – 3:16-cv-611-DRH

11.

Pierre Sanders, et al. v. Combe Incorporated, et al.
USDC SD of IL – 3:16-cv-628-DRH

8