BROWN, et al v. AMERICAN HOME PROD, et al

Filing 4424

PRETRIAL ORDER NO. 8822 THAT THE FINAL POST-AUDIT DETERMINATION OF THE AHP SETTLEMENT TRUST IS AFFIRMED AND THAT THE MATRIX A, LEVEL III CLAIMS SUBMITTED BY CLAIMANT ROBERTA HABERMAN AND HER SPOUSE SAM HABERMAN ARE DENIED, THEY ARE ENTITLED ONLY TO M ATRIX B, LEVEL III BENEFITS; THE MOTION OF ROBERTA HABERMAN TO FILE A REPLY IN SUPPORT OF HER MOTION TO COMPEL AND TO ENFORCE IS DENIED AS MOOT; THE MOTION OF ROBERTA HABERMAN TO FILE AN AMENDED SUPPLEMENTAL REPLY IN SUPPORT OF HER MOTION TO COMPEL A ND TO ENFORCE IS GRANTED AND THE CLERK IS DIRECTED TO DOCKET HER REPLY; THE MOTION OF ROBERTA HABERMAN TO COMPEL AND TO ENFORCE IS DENIED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE HARVEY BARTLE, III ON 2/22/2012; 2/23/2012 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND E-MAILED TO LIAISON COUNSEL. (SEE PAPER # 109630 IN 11-MD-1203). (tjd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN RE: DIET DRUGS (PHENTERMINE/
FENFLURAMINE/DEXFENFLURAMINE)
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION
THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:
SHEILA BROWN I et al.

v.
AMERICAN HOME PRODUCTS
CORPORATION

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

PRETRIAL ORDER NO.
AND NOW, this

MDL NO. 1203

CIVIL ACTION NO. 99-20593
2:16 MD 1203

8822

a~day of February,

2012, for the

reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum, it is hereby
ORDERED that:
(1)

the final post-audit determination of the AHP

Settlement Trust is AFFIRMED and that the Matrix AI Level III
claims submitted by claimant Roberta Haberman and her spouse I Sam
Haberman, are DENIED.

Claimant Roberta Haberman and her spouse,

Sam Haberman, are entitled only to Matrix B, Level III benefits;
(2)

the motion of Roberta Haberman to file a reply in

support of her motion to compel and to enforce (Docket No. 99­
20593; Document No. 4230) is DENIED as moot;
(3)

the motion of Roberta Haberman to file an amended

supplemental reply in support of her motion to compel and to
enforce (Docket NO. 99-20593; Document No. 4257) is GRANTED and
the Clerk of Court is directed to docket her ReplYi and

(4)

the motion of Robert Haberman to compel and to

enforce (Docket No. 99-20593; Document No. 4228) is DENIED.
BY THE COURT:

-2­