Opinion
MDL 16-2740
12-08-2021
IN RE: TAXOTERE (DOCETAXEL) PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION MDL No. 16-2740 This document relates to Deborah Dupree, 21-cv-65
SECTION: “H” (5)
ORDER AND REASONS
JANE TRICHE MILAZZO, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Before the Court is a Motion to Vacate Notice of Voluntary Dismissal (Doc. 12794). For the following reasons, the Motion is GRANTED.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs in this multidistrict litigation (“MDL”) are suing several pharmaceutical companies that manufactured and/or distributed a chemotherapy drug, Taxotere or docetaxel, that Plaintiffs were administered for the treatment of breast cancer or other forms of cancer. Plaintiffs allege that the drug caused permanent alopecia-in other words, permanent hair loss. Plaintiffs bring claims of failure to warn, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent misrepresentation, and more.
Docetaxel is the generic version of Taxotere.
On March 4, 2021, Plaintiff Deborah Dupree filed a Notice of Dismissal, dismissing with prejudice all previously named defendants except Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC and Sanofi U.S. Services Inc. Sometime after the Notice was filed, Plaintiff's treating facility provided documentation identifying Hospira,
Doc. 12271.
Inc. as the manufacturer of the Taxotere/docetaxel administered to Plaintiff.On May 24, 2021, that document was uploaded to MDL Centrality. On June 3, 2021, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Vacate Notice of Voluntary Dismissal seeking to reinstate Plaintiff's claims against Hospira Worldwide, LLC and Hospira, Inc.
Doc. 12794.
Id.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), “the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect . . . or (6) any other reason that justifies relief.” “The purpose of Rule 60(b) is to balance the principle of finality of a judgment with the interest of the court in seeing that justice is done in light of all the facts.” “[T]he decision to grant or deny relief under Rule 60(b) lies within the sound discretion of the district court.”
Hesling v. CSX Transp., Inc., 396 F.3d 632, 638 (5th Cir. 2005).
Id. (quoting Edwards v. City of Houston, 78 F.3d 983, 995 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc)).
Counsel for Plaintiff contends that Plaintiff inadvertently miscommunicated the dates of her treatment with Taxotere to counsel. Therefore, at the time the Notice of Dismissal was filed, counsel was under the impression that Plaintiff had undergone treatment with Taxotere prior to 2011, at which point Sanofi-Aventis was the only manufacturer of Taxotere. Now, based on the documentation provided by Plaintiff's treating facility, counsel is certain the manufacturer of the Taxotere/docetaxel administered to Plaintiff was Hospira, Inc. Plaintiff, therefore, seeks to reinstate her claims against Hospira Worldwide, LLC and Hospira, Inc.
Because counsel for Plaintiff dismissed the claims against Hospira based on an inadvertent miscommunication from Plaintiff, and Plaintiffs treating facility subsequently identified Hospira, Inc. as the manufacturer of the Taxotere/docetaxel administered to Plaintiff, this Court finds that Plaintiff has satisfied her burden pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). Further, this Court finds that Hospira has failed to show any undue prejudice that it would suffer if the Court grants Plaintiffs Motion. Accordingly, the Court vacates the Notice of Partial Dismissal with respect to Hospira Worldwide, LLC and Hospira, Inc.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Vacate Notice of Voluntary Dismissal (Doc. 12794) is GRANTED, and the voluntary dismissal filed in the above-captioned cases is VACATED with respect to Hospira Worldwide, LLC and Hospira, Inc. The Clerk's Office is instructed to reinstate Hospira Worldwide, LLC and Hospira, Inc. as defendants in this action.