Harden Manufacturing Corporation v. Pfizer, Inc. et al

Filing 4059

Ch. Magistrate Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ORDER entered ALLOWING the Schwartz Firm's Motions to Withdraw as Attorney with respect to each of the forty-five plaintiffs delineated in Docket # 4048-2 (Docket #s 3821, 3887, 3891, 3894, 3897, 3900, 3903, 3906, 3909, 3912, 3915, 3919, 3924,3927, 3930, 3935, 3939, 3942, 3945, 3948, 3951, 3954, 3958, 3961, 3965 and 3994). Attorney Newton B. Schwartz, Sr. terminated. It is ORDERED that the Schwartz Firm and Mr. Harang shall serve a copy of this Order upon all affected plaintiffs. See attached Order. (Chernetsky, James)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
__________________________________________
)
IN RE NEURONTIN MARKETING, SALES
)
PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY
)
LITIGATION
)
MDL Docket No. 1629
__________________________________________)
Master File No. 04-10981
)
THIS ORDER RELATES TO:
)
Judge Patti B. Saris
)
Mag. Judge Leo T. Sorokin
PRODUCTS LIABILITY CASES
)
)
__________________________________________)

ORDER ON NEWTON SCHWARTZ FIRM MOTIONS TO WITHDRAW
December 12, 2012
SOROKIN, C.M.J.
Pending are twenty-six motions by The Law Offices of Newton B. Schwartz, Sr. seeking
to withdraw as counsel for each of forty-five Plaintiffs identified within Docket # 4048-2.1
The Court conducted a series of hearings with respect to the representation of the
Schwartz Firm’s clients, on May 23, 2012, June 29, 2012 and August 8, 2012. The Court
ordered on May 29, 2012, that the Schwartz Firm serve notice upon affected plaintiffs informing
them of the firm’s desire to withdraw and that if they wished to object, the objections were to be
filed by June 19, 2012. Docket # 3973. The Court received written objections from two
Plaintiffs, Jennifer Napoli (litigating on behalf of decedent Sherry Groves) (Docket # 3999) and
Caryl Taylor (Docket # 3982). At the August 8, 2012 hearing, the Court noted that Mr. Harang’s

1

The pending motions concerning the plaintiffs listed within Docket # 4048-2 are
Docket #s 3821, 3887, 3891, 3894, 3897, 3900, 3903, 3906, 3909, 3912, 3915, 3919, 3924,
3927, 3930, 3935, 3939, 3942, 3945, 3948, 3951, 3954, 3958, 3961, 3965 and 3994.
1

recent decision not to assume representation of a number of Schwartz Firm clients would
necessitate additional notices, and ordered that all affected plaintiffs be noticed by September 15,
2012 – not only those whom Harang had recently decided not to accept as clients (who would be
receiving their first notice), but all of the plaintiffs affected by the Schwartz Firm’s motion (most
of whom would thus be receiving a second such notice). See Docket # 4016 at 4-7. No
additional objections were subsequently received by the Court.
Ms. Napoli was apparently served with notice of the Schwartz Firm’s intent to withdraw
from its representation of her despite the fact that her claims had been dismissed more than a
year prior for her failure to respond to discovery. See Docket #s 4048, 3202. In this
circumstance, the Court need not consider her objection, which is moot.
The Court has considered Ms. Taylor’s objection, but overrules her objection and finds
that the attorney-client relationship has broken down and that good cause exists to permit the
Schwartz firm to withdraw. The Court makes the same finding with respect to each of the
remaining plaintiffs who has not objected after receiving notice.
Accordingly, the Schwartz Firm’s Motions to Withdraw its representation with respect to
each of the forty-five plaintiffs delineated in Docket # 4048-2 (see note 1, supra) are
ALLOWED. The Schwartz Firm and Mr. Harang shall serve a copy of this Order upon all
affected plaintiffs.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Leo T. Sorokin
Chief United States Magistrate Judge

2