Opinion
MDL No. 1407.
August 23, 2004
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' JUNE 4, 2004 MOTION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE COMPLY WITH CMOs 15 AND 15A
On June 4, 2004 defendant Bayer Corporation, on behalf of all defendants, filed a motion to dismiss with prejudice plaintiffs listed in Appendices A and B (among others) for failure to comply with this court's Case Management Orders (CMOs) 15 and 15A. Having reviewed the briefs filed in support of and in response to that motion, the court finds and rules as follows:
I. DISCUSSION
A. Standard For Dismissal for Failure to Comply with Court Order
As the court has discussed on previous occasions, in determining whether to dismiss a claim for failure to comply with a court order, a district court must consider five factors: (1) the public's interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court's need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions. See May 7, 2004 Order of Dismissal With Prejudice for Failure to Comply With CMO Nos. 15 and 15A, citing Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002). Under the same analysis articulated in the May 7, 2004 order, the court finds that absent special circumstances, dismissal in these cases is warranted.
B. Whether the Original Multi-Plaintiff Complaints Listed on Appendix B Should Be Dismissed
Defendants seek dismissal of the original multi-plaintiff complaints listed on Appendix B attached hereto. Again, as this court stated in its May 7, 2004 Order, dismissal of these complaints is appropriate under CMO 15A, which provides that "after all applicable deadlines set forth in CMO 15 have elapsed, defendant may move for the dismissal of the original multi-plaintiff complaint[.]" See May 7, 2004 Order, citing CMO No. 15A, ¶ 3. Plaintiffs do not dispute that "all applicable deadlines" have passed, and the motion to dismiss the original multi-plaintiff complaints listed on Appendix B is granted.
Several plaintiffs appear to object to this aspect of defendants' motion, claiming that their original complaint should not be dismissed because they did, in fact, file timely individual severed complaints. To clarify, dismissal of the original multi-plaintiff complaints is not a sanction, per se, for any "violation" of CMOs 15 or 15A. It is simply an administrative procedure the court has implemented to eliminate non-viable complaints from its docket. The court is well aware that the plaintiffs listed in footnote 1 have properly filed their individual complaints. Nevertheless, dismissal of the original multi-plaintiff complaints at this time is appropriate.
See "Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition to Bayer's Motion for Dismissal With Prejudice for Cases in Which Plaintiffs Filed Untimely or No Individual Complaints Under CMOs 15 and 15A." The original multi-plaintiff complaint, Minnie Swift, et al. v. Bayer Corporation, et al., C04-710, included plaintiffs Dorothy Bowie, Robert Davis, Curtis Deason, Eddie Gayden, Ellen Ruth Grayson, Susan Holloway, James Redmond, and Minnie Swift, all of whom subsequently filed timely individual complaints.
C. Other Individual Plaintiffs' Responses
Several plaintiffs have responded to defendants' motion individually. The court will address these arguments in turn.
A number of plaintiffs were erroneously included on defendants' original appendices, and this error has been brought to the court's attention by both sides; the plaintiffs are not included in this court's order. A number of other objecting plaintiffs belong to cases in which a stay has been entered. All motions as to these cases have been stricken pursuant to the court's July 16, 2004 minute order, and both parties' arguments as to these plaintiffs are therefore moot.
These plaintiffs include Kathleen Kanouff, Kevin Fisher, Amy George, Geneva Benton and Viola Pitt.
These plaintiffs include Letitia Bohahan, Janet Sportsman, Gary Odom, Patsy Rawlings, Tracy Russell, and Shirley Sewell. A number of other cases listed on defendants' original appendices have also been stayed, and the motion as to these cases is stricken as well. This order does not relate to these cases, either, and they are also not included on the attached appendices.
Finally, a number of plaintiffs have filed essentially identical oppositions to defendants' motion, asserting a number of arguments. None of these arguments are availing; indeed, one of them approaches what the court considers Rule 11 frivolity. Specifically, plaintiffs argue that since CMO 15A allows a plaintiff 30 days to cure a timely individual complaint to which a defendant has objected to as deficient, plaintiffs here are entitled to a 30-day "safe harbor" after defendants' objection (in the form of this motion) in which to file their first individual severed complaint. Almost (but unfortunately not quite) needless to say, that provision applies to timely-filed but deficient complaints, and to provide for the correction thereof, and not even arguably to complaints that were filed grossly late or not at all.
These plaintiffs include most of those listed on Appendix A.
The court previously addressed the remainder of plaintiffs' arguments in its May 7, 2004 Order, and will not reiterate the analysis here. In short, the court rejects plaintiffs' assertion that dismissal is too harsh a sanction for failure to comply with the court's order. Plaintiffs filed their complaints, if at all, months late. Plaintiffs' only apparent excuse for this failure is that their original multi-plaintiff complaint adequately put defendants on notice of the claims against them. Plaintiffs' assertion in this regard is extremely untimely and obviously ad hoc. More to the point, CMOs 15 and 15A simply did not contemplate this or any other unenumerated exception, and plaintiffs have given the court no reason to believe that such exception should be read in given the obvious prejudice suffered by defendants and the importance of proper case management to this highly complex MDL. Defendants' motion as to these plaintiffs, as listed on Appendix A, is granted.
II. CONCLUSION
Defendants' motion as to those cases listed in Appendix B is GRANTED, and these multi-plaintiff complaints are DISMISSED with prejudice in their entirety. The motion as to those cases listed in Appendix A, which includes untimely-filed individual complaints, is also GRANTED, and these cases are DISMISSED as well.
Revised Appendix A — Plaintiffs That Filed an Untimely CMO-15 Complaint
James Anderson, Jr. v. Bayer Corp. James E. Anderson, et al. v. Bayer Corp., et al. James E. Anderson, v. Bayer Corp. James E. Anderson, et al. v. Bayer Corp., et al. John R. Anderson v. Bayer Corp. James E. Anderson, et al. v. Bayer Corp., et al. Jack Archer v. Bayer Corp. James E. Anderson, et al. v. Bayer Corp., et al. Dorothy Bailey v. Bayer Corp. et al. James E. Anderson, et al. v. Bayer Corp., et al. Louis Bailey v. Bayer Corp. James E. Anderson, et al. v. Bayer Corp., et al. Sheila Barkley v. Block, et al. James E. Anderson, et al. v. Bayer Corp., et al. Kathy Bradham v. Bayer Corp. James E. Anderson, et al. v. Bayer Corp., et al. Eddie Butler v. Bayer Corp. James E. Anderson, et al. v. Bayer Corp., et al. Ethel Carter v. Bayer Corp. James E. Anderson, et al. v. Bayer Corp., et al. Earnestine Dale v. Bayer Corp. James E. Anderson, et al. v. Bayer Corp., et al. Elizabeth Elmore v. Bayer Corp. James E. Anderson, et al. v. Bayer Corp., et al. Emma Gooch v. Block James E. Anderson, et al. v. Bayer Corp., et al. Robert Green v. Wyeth James E. Anderson, et al. v. Bayer Corp., et al. Daisy Harris v. Bayer Corp., et al. James E. Anderson, et al. v. Bayer Corp., et al. Leeida Henard v. Bayer Corp. James E. Anderson, et al. v. Bayer Corp., et al. Robert Hendry v. AHP James E. Anderson, et al. v. Bayer Corp., et al. Dollas Jacob v. Bristol Myers Squibb James E. Anderson, et al. v. Bayer Corp., et al. Ollie L. King v. Bayer Corp. James E. Anderson, et al. v. Bayer Corp., et al. James Lang v. Block, et al. James E. Anderson, et al. v. Bayer Corp., et al. Merlean Magee v. Elan, et al. James E. Anderson, et al. v. Bayer Corp., et al. William C Magee v. Bayer Corp, et al. James E. Anderson, et al. v. Bayer Corp., et al. Glenn and Paula Maier v. Bayer AG Glenn and Paula Maier v. Bayer AG Mildred Marshall v. Bayer Corp. James E. Anderson, et al. v. Bayer Corp., et al. Belain Merrick v. Block James E. Anderson, et al. v. Bayer Corp., et al. Valerie Mitchell v. Block, et al. James E. Anderson, et al. v. Bayer Corp., et al. Charles and Melanie Netterville v. Procter Gamble, et al. Charles and Melanie Netterville v. Procter Gamble, et al. Veronica Nickelson v. McNeil James E. Anderson, et al. v. Bayer Corp., et al. LilAnn Pace v. Wyeth, et al. James E. Anderson, et al. v. Bayer Corp., et al. Joy Pickering v. Block, et al. James E. Anderson, et al. v. Bayer Corp., et al. Elizabeth Pritchard v. Wyeth James E. Anderson, et al. v. Bayer Corp., et al. Edward Schuette v. Bayer Corp., et al. James E. Anderson, et al. v. Bayer Corp., et al. Levi Smith v. Bayer Corp. James E. Anderson, et al. v. Bayer Corp., et al. Willie Thompson v. Bayer Corp. James E. Anderson, et al. v. Bayer Corp., et al. Brenda Trott v. Wyeth, et al. James E. Anderson, et al. v. Bayer Corp., et al. Sharon Twyner v. Bayer Corp., et al. James E. Anderson, et al. v. Bayer Corp., et al. Alfanette Vaughn v. GlaxoSmithKline Della Warren v. Bayer Corp., et al. James E. Anderson, et al. v. Bayer Corp., et al. Lois Washington v. Bayer Corp., et al. James E. Anderson, et al. v. Bayer Corp., et al. Shawanda Washington v. Bayer Corp. James E. Anderson, et al. v. Bayer Corp., et al. Charles Welch v. Bayer Corp. James E. Anderson, et al. v. Bayer Corp., et al. Patricia Wells v. Bayer Corp., et al. James E. Anderson, et al. v. Bayer Corp., et al. Martha Wicks v. Wyeth James E. Anderson, et al. v. Bayer Corp., et al. Nathaniel Williams v. Bayer Corp. James E. Anderson, et al. v. Bayer Corp., et al. Roger Dale Wilson v. Bayer Corp. James E. Anderson, et al. v. Bayer Corp., et al. Delores Woods v. Bayer Corp. James E. Anderson, et al. v. Bayer Corp., et al.
Plaintiff Name Case Name State MDL Case Former Docket Date Filed No MDL Date Case No 1. Anderson, Jr.- MS C04-1058 C04-0022 02/11/2004 05/07/2004 James (Originally in ) 2. Anderson, MS C04-1449 C04-0022 02/11/2004 06/23/2004 James E. (Originally in ) 3. Anderson- MS C04-1059 C04-0022 02/11/2004 05/07/2004 John R. (Originally in ) 4. Archer- Jack MS C04-1060 C04-0022 02/11/2004 05/07/2004 (Originally in ) 5. Bailey- MS C04-1062 C04-0022 02/11/2004 05/07/2004 Dorothy (Originally in ) 6. Bailey- Louis MS C04-1061 C04-0022 02/11/2004 05/07/2004 (Originally in ) 7. Barkley- MS C04-1063 C04-0022 02/11/2004 05/07/2004 Sheila (Originally in ) 8. Bradham- MS C04-1064 C04-0022 02/11/2004 05/07/2004 Kathy (Originally in ) 9. Butler- Eddie MS C04-1065 C04-0022 02/11/2004 05/07/2004 (Originally in ) 10. Carter- Ethel MS C04-1066 C04-0022 02/11/2004 05/07/2004 (Originally in ) 11. Dale- MS C04-1068 C04-0022 02/11/2004 05/07/2004 Earnestine (Originally in ) 12. Elmore- MS C04-1070 C04-0022 02/11/2004 05/07/2004 Elizabeth (Originally in ) 13. Gooch- Emma MS C04-1071 C04-0022 02/11/2004 05/07/2004 (Originally in ) 14. Green -Robert MS C04-1450 C04-0022 02/11/2004 06/23/2004 (Originally in ) 15. Harris- Daisy MS C04-1048 C04-0022 02/11/2004 05/07/2004 (Originally in ) 16. Henard- MS C04-1072 C04-0022 02/11/2004 05/07/2004 Leeida (Originally in ) 17. Hendry- MS C04-1073 C04-0022 02/11/2004 05/07/2004 Robert (Originally in ) 18. Jacob- Dollas MS C04-1074 C04-0022 02/11/2004 05/07/2004 (Originally in ) 19. King- Ollie L. MS C04-1075 C04-0022 02/11/2004 05/07/2004 (Originally in ) 20. Lang- James MS C04-1076 C04-0022 02/11/2004 05/07/2004 (Originally in ) 21. Magee- MS C04-1078 C04-0022 02/11/2004 05/07/2004 Merlean (Originally in ) 22. Magee- MS C04-1077 C04-0022 02/11/2004 05/07/2004 William C (Originally in ) 23. Maier — Glenn MS C04-1451 C04-0022 02/11/2004 06/23/2004 24. Maier — Paula MS C04-1451 C04-0022 02/11/2004 06/23/2004 25. Marshall- MS C04-1034 C04-0022 02/11/2004 05/07/2004 Mildred (Originally in ) 26. Merrick MS C04-1255 C04-0022 02/11/2004 05/19/2004 Belain (Originally in ) 27. Mitchell- MS C04-1035 C04-0022 02/11/2004 05/07/2004 Valerie (Originally in ) 28. Netterville MS C04-1256 C04-0022 02/11/2004 05/19/2004 Charles 29. Netterville MS C04-1256 C04-0022 02/11/2004 05/19/2004 Melanic 30. Nickelson- MS C04-1036 C04-0022 02/11/2004 05/07/2004 Veronica (Originally in ) 31. Pace- LilAnn MS C04-1037 C04-0022 02/11/2004 05/07/2004 (Originally in ) 32. Pickering- Joy MS C04-1038 C04-0022 02/11/2004 05/07/2004 (Originally in ) 33. Pritchard- MS C04-1039 C04-0022 02/11/2004 05/07/2004 Elizabeth (Originally in ) 34. Schuette- MS C04-1040 C04-0022 02/11/2004 05/07/2004 Edward (Originally in ) 35. Smith- Levi MS C04-1041 C04-0022 02/11/2004 05/07/2004 (Originally in ) 36. Thompson- MS C04-1042 C04-0022 02/11/2004 05/07/2004 Willie (Originally in ) 37. Trott- Brenda MS C04-1043 C04-0022 02/11/2004 05/07/2004 (Originally in ) 38. Twyner- MS C04-1044 C04-0022 02/11/2004 05/07/2004 Sharon (Originally in ) 39. Vaughn MS C04-1346 C04-0022 02/11/2004 06/8/2004 Alfanette 40. Warren- Della MS C04-1045 C04-0022 02/11/2004 05/07/2004 (Originally in ) 41. Washington- MS C04-1046 C04-0022 02/11/2004 05/07/2004 Lois (Originally in ) 42. Washington- MS C04-1047 C04-0022 02/11/2004 05/07/2004 Shawanda (Originally in ) 43. Welch- MS C04-1049 C04-0022 02/11/2004 05/07/2004 Charles (Originally in ) 44. Wells-Patricia MS C04-1050 C04-0022 02/11/2004 05/07/2004 (Originally in ) 45. Wicks- Martha MS C04-1051 C04-0022 02/11/2004 05/07/2004 (Originally in ) 46. Williams- MS C04-1053 C04-0022 02/11/2004 05/07/2004 Nathaniel (Originally in ) 47. Wilson- Roger MS C04-1054 C04-0022 02/11/2004 05/07/2004 Dale (Originally in ) 48. Woods- MS C04-1055 C04-0022 02/11/2004 05/07/2004 Delores (Originally in )