Edwards et al v. C. R. Bard, Inc. et al

Filing 33

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying as moot 31 MOTION by Tissue Science Laboratories Limited, C. R. Bard, Inc. to Dismiss Without Prejudice; denying as moot 32 AMENDED MOTION by Tissue Science Laboratories Limited, C. R. Bard, Inc. to Dismiss W ithout Prejudice re: 31 MOTION by Tissue Science Laboratories Limited, C. R. Bard, Inc. to Dismiss Without Prejudice; the court ORDERS that the plaintiff William Edwards is DISMISSED without prejudice. Signed by Judge Joseph R. Goodwin on 8/16/2019. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (st)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
CHARLESTON DIVISION

IN RE:

C.R. BARD, INC.,
PELVIC REPAIR SYSTEM
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION
------------------------------------------------MARY EDWARDS and
WILLIAM EDWARDS,

MDL 2187

Plaintiffs,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:13-cv-11199

C. R. BARD, INC.,
TISSUE SCIENCE LABORATORIES LIMITED,
ETHICON, INC. and
JOHNSON & JOHNSON,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On November 14, 2018, plaintiffs’ counsel filed a Suggestion of Death noting the death of
plaintiff William Edwards during the pendency of this action [ECF No. 28]. Defendants C. R.
Bard, Inc. and Tissue Science Laboratories Limited filed a Motion to Dismiss without Prejudice
and an Amended Motion for Dismissal without Prejudice [ECF Nos. 31 and 32]. In the Motion to
Dismiss and the Amended Motion for Dismissal, the defendants request dismissal of William
Edwards for failure to substitute a party within the 90-day frame set out in the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure 25(a). Pretrial Order (“PTO”) # 289 filed in In re: C. R. Bard, Inc., Pelvic Repair
Sys. Prods. Liab. Litig., 2:10-md-2187 (“Bard 2187”) [ECF No. 6195] outlines the procedures the
court requires to either substitute a deceased party pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

25(a), or to dismiss the deceased party from the civil action because of a failure to properly serve
parties and/or nonparties, and substitute the deceased party.
The court FINDS that the Suggestion of Death did not comply with Rule 25(a) as it does
not appear to have been properly served upon non-parties or a personal representative of the estate.
Regardless, the time period as set forth in PTO # 289 to substitute a party has since passed.
Therefore, the court ORDERS that the plaintiff William Edwards is DISMISSED without
prejudice and the Motion For Dismissal Without Prejudice and Amended Motion for Dismissal
without Prejudice [ECF Nos. 31 and 32] are DENIED as moot.
The court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any
unrepresented party.
ENTER: August 16, 2019

2