Almer v. Peanut Corporation of America
Almer v. Peanut Corporation of America
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE D I S T R IC T O F M I N N E S O T A
C h a m b e r s of DONOVAN W. FRANK D IS T R IC T JUDGE
W a r r e n E. Burger Federal Building 3 1 6 North Ro b e r t Street, Room 738 S t . Paul, Minnesota 55101 (651) 848-1290
June 4, 2007 BY U.S. MAIL & ECF Timothy O'Brien, Esq. Kimberly Lambert, Esq. Levin, Papantonio, Thomas, Mitchell Echsner & Proctor, PA 316 South Baylen Street, Suite 600 Pensacola, FL 32502-5996 Re: Pamela Barber, Nancy Boozer, et al. v. Guidant Corporation, et al. Civil No. 07-2407 (DWF/AJB) AND Nancy Boozer v. Guidant Corporation et al. Civil No. XX-XXXX (DWF/AJB)
Dear Mr. O'Brien and Ms. Lambert: On May 22, 2007, The Law Office of Patrick J. Mulligan, PC ("the Mulligan Law Firm") filed a Complaint by Adoption on behalf of Nancy Boozer, among others. The Complaint states that Nancy Boozer is a citizen and resident of Clarkshill, South Carolina, and on November 19, 2001, was implanted with Guidant Device Model #1861, Serial #214711 at University Hospital in Augusta, Georgia. On May 23, 2007, the District of Minnesota Clerk's Office received a Complaint from you to be filed also on behalf of Nancy Boozer. This Co mp lain t states that Nancy Boozer is a citizen and resident of McCormick County, South Carolina, and on November 19, 2001, was implanted with Guidant Device Model #1861, Serial #214711 at University Hospital in Augusta, Georgia. The Court's original belief was that both Complaints were filed by the Mulligan Law Firm. Therefore, through letter communication dated May 25, 2007, the Court asked the Mulligan Law Firm to respond explaining the situation comprising the dual filings and whether one of the two cases should be and/or will be withdrawn. (See May 25, 2007 letter.) On May 30, 2007, the Mulligan Law Firm responded, representing that they contacted Ms. Boozer whereby she indicated that she wanted the Mulligan Law Firm to represent her, and representing that they had notified you of Ms. Boozer's wishes and asked you to move to dismiss without prejudice the case that you had sent for filing. (See May 30, 2007 letter, with enclosures.) Through this letter, I am giving you the chance to respond in writing to explain the situation comprising the dual filings, and whether one of the two cases should be and/or will be withdrawn. Please respond within one week of receipt of this letter. You may send your response in writing (316 North Robert Street, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101); by fax (651-848-1292); or by e-mail (email@example.com). If you agree that the
Timothy O'Brien, Esq. Kimberly Lambert, Esq. June 4, 2007 Page 2 second case sent for filing by you should be withdrawn, it is agreeable to the Court to have all attorneys (including you and the attorneys from the Mulligan Law Firm) and Ms. Boozer sign a stipulation explaining the parties' agreement to have the second Complaint sent for filing (dated May 23, 2007) withdrawn and returned along with the filing fee. If you contend that the second Complaint should not be withdrawn, the Court will then go ahead and have the second Complaint filed and Order the parties to file respective Motions to Dismiss in the pending cases where Ms. Boozer is a named Plaintiff. The Court will not allow Ms. Boozer to remain a named Plaintiff in two separate cases. I am electronically filing a copy of this letter so that Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel and Guidant's attorneys will receive a copy of this letter. After I receive a response, I will determine the appropriate course of action based on the papers submitted or schedule a telephone conference to discuss the filings. Very truly yours, s/Donovan W. Frank DONOVAN W. FRANK Judge of United States District Court DWF:rlb Enclosures c: Patrick J. Mulligan, Esq. (By U.S. Mail & ECF) Eric N. Roberson, Esq. Reid Stewart, Esq. The Law Office of Patrick J. Mulligan, PC 2911 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 900 Dallas, TX 75219 Charles S. Zimmerman, Esq. (by ECF) Zimmerman Reed 651 Nicollet Mall, Suite 501 Minneapolis, MN 55402-4123 Timothy Pratt, Esq. (by ECF) Shook , Hardy & Bacon, LLP 2555 Grand Blvd. Kansas City, MO 64108-2613
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?