Opinion
MDL 16-2740
08-24-2023
IN RE TAXOTERE (DOCETAXEL) PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION This document relates to All cases in attached Exhibits.
SECTION: “H” (5)
ORDER AND REASONS
HON. JANE TRICHE MILAZZO, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Comply with Case Management Order No. 35 filed by Defendants Hospira Worldwide, LLC f/k/a Hospira Worldwide, Inc., Hospira, Inc., and Pfizer, Inc. (Doc. 14770). For the following reasons, the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 14770) 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 cancer. Among these companies are Defendants Hospira Worldwide, LLC f/k/a Hospira Worldwide, Inc., Hospira, Inc. (collectively, “Hospira”), and Pfizer, Inc. (“Pfizer”). Plaintiffs allege that the drug caused permanent alopecia. Plaintiffs bring claims of failure to warn, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent misrepresentation, and more.
Docetaxel is the generic version of Taxotere, although the Court uses the term “generic” loosely.
In response to Defendant Accord Healthcare, Inc.'s motion practice in January 2022 based on failure to effect service of process, this Court reminded all Plaintiffs in this MDL at the July 22, 2022, General Status Conference that effecting service “is an obligation of the plaintiff and the plaintiff only.” The Court extended the deadline for all Plaintiffs to properly serve their complaints on all Defendants to August 31, 2022. Thereafter, this Court entered Case Management Order No. 35 (“CMO 35”). CMO 35 provides that “it is Plaintiffs' responsibility to ensure that service is effected on or before August 31, 2022, after which Plaintiffs' claims against non-served Defendants will be subject to dismissal with prejudice in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m).” CMO 35 further directs Plaintiffs still needing to effect service to consult the appropriate streamlined service of process orders.
See Docs. 13704, 13781, 13782, 13802.
Doc. 14445 at 7:22-23.
Doc. 14456.
Defendants agreed to waive formal service of process under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 and to accept informal service of process via electronic mail (“email”). The Court issued several Pretrial Orders setting forth the procedures for informal service of process on each Defendant. See Doc. 160 (Pretrial Order No. 9, Streamlined Service on Sanofi); Doc. 304 (Pretrial Order No. 30, Streamlined Service on Sandoz); Doc. 509 (Pretrial Order No. 40A, Streamlined Service on Hospira and Pfizer).
On October 3, 2022, Hospira and Pfizer filed the instant Motion to Dismiss identifying 153 Plaintiffs who failed to properly serve their complaints by the court-ordered deadline.
LEGAL STANDARD
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(5) provides for dismissal of an action for insufficient service of process. “A Rule 12(b)(5) motion is the proper vehicle for challenging the mode of delivery or the lack of delivery of the summons and complaint.” When service of process is challenged, the party responsible for effecting service must bear the burden of establishing its validity. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 governs service of process generally, and Rule 4(m) permits the Court to dismiss a case without prejudice if the plaintiff fails to serve the defendant within 90 days of filing the complaint.
Matherne v. La. through Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs., No. 18-3396, 2020 WL 491225, at *1 (E.D. La. Jan. 30, 2020) (quoting 5B Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1353 (3d ed. 1998)).
Aetna Bus. Credit., Inc. v. Universal Decor & Interior Design, 635 F.2d 434, 435 (5th Cir. 1981).
“If, however, the plaintiff can establish good cause for failing to serve the defendant, the court must extend the time for service.” The “good cause” standard has been described as requiring “at least as much as would be required to show excusable neglect, as to which simple inadvertence or mistake of counsel or ignorance of the rules usually does not suffice.” “In addition, courts normally require ‘some showing of good faith on the part of the party seeking an enlargement and some reasonable basis for noncompliance within the time specified '”
Millan v. USAA Indem. Co., 546 F.3d 321, 325 (5th Cir. 2008) (citing Thompson v. Brown, 91 F.3d 20, 21 (5th Cir. 1996)).
Winters v. Teledyne Movible Offshore, Inc., 776 F.2d 1304, 1306 (5th Cir. 1985).
Gartin v. Par Pharm. Companies, Inc., 289 Fed.Appx. 688, 692 (5th Cir. 2008) (citing Lambert v. United States, 44 F.3d 296, 299 (5th Cir. 1995)).
“Even if the plaintiff lacks good cause, the court has discretionary power to extend the time for service.” “A discretionary extension may be warranted, ‘for example, if the applicable statute of limitations would bar the refiled action, or if the defendant is evading service or conceals a defect in attempted service.'” Nevertheless, if the Court declines to extend the time for service and instead dismisses the suit without prejudice for failure to comply with Rule 4(m), the Fifth Circuit requires that the dismissal be treated as a dismissal with prejudice if the claims would be time-barred by the statute of limitations upon refiling.
Millan, 546 F.3d at 325 (citing Thompson, 91 F.3d at 21).
Id. (quoting FED. R. CIV. PROC. 4(m) advisory committee's note (1993)).
See Millan, 546 F.3d at 325-26.
A dismissal with prejudice is only warranted if there is a “clear record of delay or contumacious conduct by the plaintiff,” and “lesser sanctions would not serve the best interest of justice.” Where the Fifth Circuit “has affirmed dismissals with prejudice, it has generally found at least one of three aggravating factors: ‘(1) delay caused by [the] plaintiff himself and not his attorney; (2) actual prejudice to the defendant; or (3) delay caused by intentional conduct.'” Still, these “aggravating factors are not required for a dismissal with prejudice.”
Sealed Appellant v. Sealed Appellee, 452 F.3d 415, 417 (5th Cir. 2006).
Millan, 546 F.3d at 326 (quoting Price v. McGlathery, 792 F.2d 472, 474 (5th Cir. 1986)).
In re Deepwater Horizon (Barrera), 907 F.3d 232, 235 n.1 (5th Cir. 2018).
LAW AND ANALYSIS
Hospira and Pfizer argue that that Plaintiffs' claims against them should be dismissed because Plaintiffs failed to effectuate service within the required 90-day period, failed to comply with CMO 35, and cannot demonstrate good cause for their delay to support the Court invoking its discretionary power to extend the time for Plaintiffs to effect service. Hospira and Pfizer agreed to withdraw their Motion as to 33 Plaintiffs. Another 19 Plaintiffs dismissed their claims against Hospira and/or Pfizer after the Defendants filed the Motion to Dismiss. Seven Plaintiffs consent to dismissal against Hospira and Pfizer.Twenty-two Plaintiffs have failed to respond. Sixty-nine Plaintiffs oppose Hospira's and Pfizer's Motion.
See Exhibit A.
See Exhibit B.
See Exhibit C.
1. Plaintiffs for Whom Hospira's and Pfizer's Motion is Moot
Hospira and Pfizer agreed to withdraw their Motion as to 33 Plaintiffs. Another 19 Plaintiffs dismissed their claims against Hospira and/or Pfizer after the Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss. Thus, the instant Motion is moot as to the Plaintiffs identified in Exhibit D.
2. Plaintiffs Who Consent to Dismissal
Seven Plaintiffs consent to dismissal of their claims with prejudice against Hospira and Pfizer. Thus, those actions identified in Exhibit A are dismissed with prejudice against Hospira and Pfizer.
3. Plaintiffs Who Did Not Respond to Hospira's and Pfizer's Motion
“When service of process is challenged, the serving party bears the burden of proving its validity or good cause for failure to effect timely service.”Moreover, this Court has “broad discretion and inherent authority to manage its docket,” which includes “the power to dismiss a case for a party's failure to obey the court's orders.” The 22 Plaintiffs identified in Exhibit B have not filed responses to Hospira's and Pfizer's Motion and have not proven valid service of process or good cause for their noncompliance with CMO 35. These Plaintiffs have not even attempted to carry their burden. Therefore, the claims of the 22 Plaintiffs identified in Exhibit B are dismissed as to Hospira and Pfizer for the failure to comply with CMO 35 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4.
Systems Signs Supplies v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., 903 F.2d 1011, 1013 (5th Cir. 1990) (citing Winters v. Teledyne Movible Offshore, Inc., 776 F.2d 1304, 1305 (5th Cir.1985); Aetna Business Credit, Inc. v. Universal Decor & Interior Design, Inc., 635 F.2d 434, 435 (5th Cir. Unit A Jan. 1981)).
In re Deepwater Horizon (Perez), 713 Fed.Appx. 360, 362 (5th Cir. 2018).
4. Plaintiffs Who Oppose Dismissal
Sixty-nine Plaintiffs oppose Hospira's and Pfizer's Motion. At the outset, the Court finds that these Plaintiffs have failed to establish good cause for extending the time to serve Hospira and Pfizer. Plaintiffs offer several reasons for their non-compliance, including (1) inadvertent clerical and technical errors, (2) inadvertent oversights due to change in counsel, and (3) mistaken beliefs that service was properly made. The Fifth Circuit has held, however, that the good cause standard requires “at least as much as would be required to show excusable neglect” and that “inadvertence, mistake or ignorance of counsel are not excusable neglect.” As a result, Plaintiffs' arguments do not satisfy the standard for good cause; they provide no explanation for their years-long delay in serving Hospira and Pfizer and their failure to observe the extension granted by CMO 35. This Court, therefore, turns to whether it should invoke its discretionary power under Rule 4(m) to extend the time for service even when good cause is lacking.
McGinnis v. Shalala, 2 F.3d 548, 551 (5th Cir. 1993) (quoting Winters, 776 F.2d at 1306 and Traina v. United States, 911 F.2d 1155, 1157 (5th Cir.1990)).
See Newby v. Enron Corp., 284 Fed.Appx. 146, 149 (5th Cir. 2008).
As discussed, this Court has discretion to extend the time for service even when good cause is lacking. The Fifth Circuit has explained that such relief may be warranted “if the applicable statute of limitations would bar the refiled action.” But the Fifth Circuit has also clarified that the “inability to refile suit does not bar dismissal.” Where there is “a clear record of delay or contumacious conduct by the plaintiff and where lesser sanctions would not serve the best interests of justice,” dismissal with prejudice is warranted. For the following reasons, the Court finds that there is a clear record of delay and contumacious conduct in this case and that lesser sanctions would not serve the best interests of justice.
See id.
Id. (citing FED. R. CIV. PROC. 4(m) advisory committee's note (1993)).
Id. at 150 (citing Traina v. United States, 911 F.2d 1155, 1157 (5th Cir. 1990)).
Sealed Appellant, 452 F.3d at 417 (quoting Rogers v. Kroger, 669 F.2d 317, 320 (5th Cir. 1982)) (cleaned up).
First, despite warnings from this Court and an extended deadline for effectuating service, Plaintiffs unjustifiably failed to serve Hospira and Pfizer for years. Plaintiff Patricia Lepore failed to serve Hospira and Pfizer for more than one year and four months; Plaintiffs Deborah Brewer, Cynthia Louise Carter, Alicia De Anda, Linda Bieller, Teresa Shores, Sharyl Schuller, Brenda Popke, Debbie Moore, Roberta Rogers, Lori Mitchell, and Regina Jeffries failed to serve Hospira and Pfizer for more than two years; Plaintiffs Melodie Wells Smith, Stephanie Wilson, Theatrice Thompson, Kimberly Eastep, Cindy Ramsey, Rhonda Clamon, Janice Johnson, Michele Knight, Lara Della Rocca, Patricia Gardner, Millie Howard, and Penelope Pahios failed to serve Hospira and Pfizer for more than three years; Plaintiffs Jacqueline Greenwood, Martine Reeder, Kathleen L. Gilson, Barbara Matter, Cindy Thomason, Tessie Adams, Shelia Byers, Yvonne Manning, Linda Melvin, Lori Hansen, and Carolyn Lawrence failed to serve Hospira and Pfizer for more than four years; and Plaintiffs Coretta Tengesdahl, Tammie Lackey, Ada Brown, Chantel Brown, Gwen Burnstein, Rose Champagne, Edith Chappell, Amy Chorak, Janice Clendenon, Virginia Coleman, Gwendolyn Crawford, Earnestine Dawson, Gloria Fuller, Rosie Goins, Thelma Granderson, Ruby Harris, Ethel Hawkins, Sherwanda Hyde, Charlotte Jefferson, Jonnie Johnson, Joyce Jones, Kristy Justice, Pamela Kidd, Sylvia Lewis, Geraldine Manigault, Linda O'Brien, Christine Palmatier, Tawonna Powell, Annie Section, Rosetta Sheffield, Annie Siler, Kimberly Spencer, Theresa Tarver, Cynthia Turner, Sarah Waller, Linda Ward, Betty Web-McConnell, Daphine Williams, Lisa Wills, Doris Williams, Iris Yessilth, and Catherine Walker failed to serve Hospira and Pfizer for more than five years. It was not until Hospira, Pfizer, and other co-defendants filed motions to dismiss that Plaintiffs attempted to comply with their basic obligation to serve their complaints. Each Plaintiff's failure displays “a clear record of delay.”
See Exhibit C.
See Doc. 14751 (filed by Defendants sanofi-aventis U.S. LLC and Sanofi U.S. Services Inc. on September 27, 2022); Doc. 14763 (filed by Defendant Sandoz, Inc. on September 29, 2022); Doc. 14770 (filed by Defendants Hospira Worldwide, LLC f/k/a Hospira Worldwide, Inc., Hospira, Inc., and Pfizer, Inc. on October 3, 2022); Docs. 14777, 14960, 14966, 14967, 14968, 14969 (filed by Defendant Accord Healthcare, Inc. on October 4, 2022, October 20, 2022, October 21, 2022, and October 24, 2022, respectively).
See Sealed Appellant, 452 F.3d at 419 (finding “a clear record of delay” where plaintiffappellant failed to serve defendant for more than 21 months); see also Veazy v. Young's Yacht Sale & Serv., 644 F.2d 475, 478 (5th Cir. Unit A May 1981) (affirming dismissal where plaintiff had a 21-month delay in serving process and limitations expired during the delay); Fournier v. Textron, Inc., 776 F.2d 532, 534 (5th Cir. 1985) (affirming dismissal where plaintiff had a 32-month delay in serving process and limitations expired during the delay); Porter v. Beaumont Enters. & Journal, 743 F.2d 269, 271 (5th Cir. 1984) (affirming dismissal where plaintiff delayed two and one-half years in serving process and limitations expired during the delay).
Next, Plaintiffs' failure to observe the deadline set by CMO 35 constitutes contumacious conduct. The Fifth Circuit has described contumacious conduct as “the stubborn resistance to authority which justifies a dismissal with prejudice.” In other words, it is a party's “willful disobedience of a court order.” The record reveals contumacious conduct here. In issuing CMO 35, this Court unequivocally directed Plaintiffs to effect service of process on or before August 31, 2022 and cautioned that the failure to do so would subject Plaintiffs' claims “to dismissal with prejudice in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m).” This Court has “broad discretion and inherent authority to manage its docket,” which includes “the power to dismiss a case for a party's failure to obey the court's orders.” Plaintiffs' willful disregard of this court-ordered deadline warrants dismissal of their claims against Hospira and Pfizer.
Millan, 546 F.3d at 327 (quoting McNeal v. Papasan, 842 F.2d 787, 792 (5th Cir. 1988)).
In re Deepwater Horizon, 805 Fed.Appx. 262, 265 (5th Cir. 2020).
Doc. 14456.
In re Deepwater Horizon (Perez), 713 Fed.Appx. at 362.
Finally, the Court doubts that lesser sanctions would serve the best interests of justice. “Lesser sanctions include ‘[a]ssessments of fines, costs, or damages against the plaintiff or his counsel, attorney disciplinary measures, conditional dismissal, dismissal without prejudice, and explicit warnings.'”Plaintiffs have already received explicit warnings: this Court at the July 22, 2022 General Status Conference and CMO 35 warned that the failure to effectuate service by August 31, 2022 would subject Plaintiffs' claims to dismissal with prejudice. Because Plaintiffs have already been afforded a discretionary extension of time to effectuate service, “additional lesser sanctions would only ‘further delay the district court's efforts to adjudicate the MDL expeditiously'” and would risk incentivizing dilatory behavior.
In analogous circumstances, the Fifth Circuit upheld dismissal “when the plaintiffs failed to comply with a PTO even after receiving an extension and did not submit evidence to corroborate their reasons for delay ....” See In re Deepwater Horizon, 805 Fed.Appx. 262, 265 66 (5th Cir. 2020) (discussing In re Deepwater Horizon, 907 F.3d 232 (5th Cir. 2018)).
In re Deepwater Horizon, 988 F.3d 192, 198 (5th Cir. 2021) (quoting Rogers v. Kroger Co., 669 F.2d 317, 321 (5th Cir. 1982)).
Id. (quoting In re Deepwater Horizon (Barrera), 907 F.3d at 236).
Moreover, in cases where the statute of limitations expired during the delay between filing and service, the Fifth Circuit has found that “a lesser sanction would not better serve the interests of justice.” The court explained that “a delay between filing and service ordinarily is to be viewed more seriously than a delay of a like period of time occurring after service of process” and that “in this type of situation, ‘a lesser sanction would not better serve the interests of justice.'” In essence, dismissal-as opposed to some lesser sanction-is warranted due to the prejudice to the defendant resulting from the failure to serve process within the statute of limitations period. Indeed, “if the statute has run, a potential defendant that has not been served is entitled to expect that it will no longer have to defend the claim,” and “[i]f service can be delayed indefinitely once the complaint is filed within the statutory period, these expectations are defeated and the statute of limitations no longer protects defendants from stale claims.” This Court, therefore, finds that dismissal is warranted in this case as well and lesser sanctions would not better serve the interests of justice.
Sealed Appellant, 452 F.3d at 419-20 (quoting Veazy, 644 F.2d at 478).
Id. (quoting Veazy, 644 F.2d at 478).
See Veazey, 644 F.2d at 478 (“We view a delay between filing and service as being more likely to result in prejudice than a delay occurring after service”); see also Sealed Appellant, 452 F.3d at 418 (“In Veazey, we explained that failure to serve process within the statute of limitations period is extremely prejudicial because it affects all the defendant's preparations”).
Sealed Appellant, 452 F.3d at 418 (quoting Veazey, 644 F.2d at 478).
Id. (quoting Veazey, 644 F.2d at 478). This Court notes that it makes no determination whether Plaintiffs' claims were initially filed before the statute of limitations expired, as that question is not presently before the Court. Instead, this Court assumes for the purposes of this Motion that Plaintiffs' claims were timely filed. Additionally, regardless of whether the claims were timely filed, it is undisputed that at the time Hospira and Pfizer filed the instant Motion the statute of limitations on each Plaintiff's claims had run.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Comply with Case Management Order No. 35 filed by Defendants Hospira Worldwide, LLC f/k/a Hospira Worldwide, Inc., Hospira, Inc., and Pfizer, Inc. (Doc. 14770) is GRANTED.
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion is GRANTED as to Plaintiffs identified in Exhibits A, B, and C, and the claims of these Plaintiffs are hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to Defendants Hospira Worldwide, LLC f/k/a Hospira Worldwide, Inc., Hospira, Inc., and Pfizer, Inc. ONLY.
Exhibit A
#
Case Name
Plaintiff
MDL No.
Primary Plaintiffs' Counsel
Filed
1
Tipton v. Sanofi, et al.
Sandra Tipton
2:16-cv-17232
Bachus & Schanker, LLC
12/12/2016
2
Davis v. Sanofi, et al.
Terry Davis
2:16-cv-17198
Bachus & Schanker, LLC
12/12/2016
3
Greedan v. Hospira, Inc. et al Note: this is a duplicate claim. Plaintiff consents to dismissal of this case without prejudice to the other claim (19-cv-13259)
Joanne Greedan
2:19-cv-14088
Bachus & Schanker, LLC
12/5/2019
4
Hoskin-Hudson v. Sanofi S.A. et al
Mary Hoskin- Hudson
2:16-cv-17026
Bachus & Schanker, LLC
12/9/2016
5
McClendon v. Sanofi S.A. et al. Note: this is a duplicate claim. Plaintiff consents to dismissal of this case without prejudice to the other claim (17-cv-07115 )
Mary McClendon
2:17-cv-08617
Bachus & Schanker, LLC
9/1/2017
6
Kenniger v. Sanofi, et al
Cynthia Kenniger
2:17-cv-3112
Femelius Simon PLLC
4/10/2017
7
Ward v. Hospira, Inc. et al
Helen Ward
2:19-cv-11428
Napoli Shkolnik, PLLC (New York)
7/1/2019
Exhibit B
#
Case Name
Plaintiff
MDL No.
Primary Plaintiffs' Counsel
Filed
1
Harbert v. Sanofi S.A. et al
Christy Harbert
2:16-cv-15839
Andrews Thornton Higgins Razmara
10/25/2016
2
Mclaney v. Accord Healthcare, Inc et al
Brenda McIaney
2:19-cv-4339
Carmen D. Caruso Law Firm
4/4/2019
3
DelPlato v. Hospira, Inc., Inc.
Madeline DelPlato
2:19-cv-09602
Carmen D. Caruso Law Firm
4/22/2019
4
Jarrett v. Sandoz, Inc. et al
Diana Jarrett
2:19-cv-09607
Carmen D. Caruso Law Firm
4/22/2019
5
Sells v. Hospira, Inc. et al
Joanne Sells
2:19-cv-09611
Carmen D. Caruso Law Firm
4/22/2019
6
Stewart v. Sandoz, Inc. et al
Justine Stewart
2:19-cv-09586
Carmen D. Caruso Law Firm
4/22/2019
7
Avery v. Sanofi-Aventis, et al.
Christine Avery
2:20-cv-00967
Finson Law Firm
3/20/2020
8
Watkins v. Sanofi U.S. Services, Inc. et al
Mary Watkins
2:18-cv-06462
Friend Law Group, LLC
7/3/2018
9
Free v. Sanofi S.A. et al
Kimberly J. Free
2:16-cv-15326
Kennedy Hodges, LLP
4/27/2016
10
Pope v. Sanofi U.S. Services Inc. et al
Ulle Pope
2:18-cv-00794
McDonald Worley
2/21/2018
11
Newman v. Sandoz et al.
Patricia Newman
2:18-cv-00795
McDonald Worley
1/25/2018
12
Encalarde v. Sanofi-Aventis, U.S., Inc. et al
Mary Encalarde
2:16-cv-15863
Morris Bart, LLC (New Orleans)
10/26/2016
13
LaFountain v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S. et al
Lisa LaFountain
2:16-cv-16250
Morris Bart, LLC (New Orleans)
10/26/2016
14
Nettles v. Hospira, Inc. et al
Neotia Nettles
2:19-cv-10826
Murray Law Firm
5/30/2019
15
Newsome v. Sanofi U.S. Services Inc
Patricia Ann Newsome
2:19-cv-11478
O'Mara Law Group
7/2/2019
16
Boggs v. Sanofi U.S. Services Inc. et al
Ozie Boggs
2:18-cv-11167
Ray Hodge & Associates, LLC
11/19/2018
17
Ford v. Sanofi U.S. Services, Inc. et al
Deborah Ford
2:17-cv-12763
Reich & Binstock
11/20/2017 Amended: 3/11/2019
18
Solias v. Sanofi U.S. Services Inc. et al
Joellen Solias
2:18-cv-00724
Reich & Binstock
1/24/2018
19
Kidwell v. Sanofi U.S. Services Inc et al
Twila Kidwell
2:17-cv-15550
Reich and Binstock, LLP
12/7/2017
20
Shields v. Sanofi U.S. Services Inc. et al
Gwendolyn Shields
2:17-cv-15141
Reich and Binstock, LLP
12/6/2017
21
Nieves v. Sanofi U.S. Services Inc. et al
Maria I. Nieves
2:17-cv-15044
Schmidt National Law Group
12/6/2017
22
Wood v. Sanofi S.A. et al
Delight Wood
2:16-cv-15321
Whitfield Bryson & Mason LLP
5/24/2016
Exhibit C
#
Case Name
Plaintiff
MDL No.
Primary Plaintiffs' Counsel
Filed
1
Hansen v. Hospira, Inc., Inc.
Lori Hansen
2:18-cv-00355
Atkins & Markoff
1/11/2018
2
Brown v. Sanofi, et al.
Ada Brown
2:16-cv-17142
Bachus & Schanker, LLC
12/12/2016
3
Brown v. Sanofi, et al.
Chantel Brown
2:16-cv-17160
Bachus & Schanker, LLC
12/12/2016
4
Burnstein v. Sanofi, et al.
Gwen Burnstein
2:16-cv-17172
Bachus & Schanker, LLC
12/12/2016
5
Champagne v. Sanofi, et al.
Rose Champagne
2:16-cv-17174
Bachus & Schanker, LLC
12/12/2016
6
Chappell v. Sanofi, et al.
Edith Chappell
2:16-cv-17163
Bachus & Schanker, LLC
12/12/2016
7
Chorak v. Sanofi, et al.
Amy Chorak
2:16-cv-17165
Bachus & Schanker, LLC
12/12/2016
8
Clendenon v. Sanofi, et al.
Janice Clendenon
2:16-cv-17157
Bachus & Schanker, LLC
12/12/2016
9
Coleman v. Sanofi, et al.
Virginia Coleman
2:16-cv-17124
Bachus & Schanker, LLC
12/12/2016
10
Dawson v. Sanofi, et al.
Earnestine Dawson
2:16-cv-17119
Bachus & Schanker, LLC
12/12/2016
11
Fuller v. Sanofi, et al.
Gloria Fuller
2:16-cv-17231
Bachus & Schanker, LLC
12/12/2016
12
Goins v. Sanofi, et al.
Rosie Goins
2:17-cv-00739
Bachus & Schanker, LLC
1/27/2017
13
Granderson v. Sanofi, et al.
Thelma Granderson
2:16-cv-17152
Bachus & Schanker, LLC
12/12/2016
14
Harris v. Sanofi, et al.
Ruby Harris
2:16-cv-17145
Bachus & Schanker, LLC
12/12/2016
15
Hawkins v. Sanofi, et al.
Ethel Hawkins
2:16-cv-17188
Bachus & Schanker, LLC
12/12/2016
16
Hyde v. Sanofi, et al.
Sherwanda Hyde
2:16-cv-17158
Bachus & Schanker, LLC
12/12/2016
17
Johnson v. Sanofi, et al.
Jonnie Johnson
2:16-cv-17166
Bachus & Schanker, LLC
12/12/2016
18
Jones v. Sanofi, et al.
Joyce Jones
2:16-cv-17209
Bachus & Schanker, LLC
12/12/2016
19
Justice v. Sanofi, et al.
Kristy Justice
2:16-cv-17186
Bachus & Schanker, LLC
12/12/2016
20
Kidd v. Sanofi, et al.
Pamela Kidd
2:16-cv-17181
Bachus & Schanker, LLC
12/12/2016
21
Lewis v. Sanofi, et al.
Sylvia Lewis
2:16-cv-17185
Bachus & Schanker, LLC
12/12/2016
22
Manigault v. Sanofi, et al.
Geraldine Manigault
2:16-cv-17214
Bachus & Schanker, LLC
12/12/2016
23
O'Brien v. Sanofi, et al.
Linda O'Brien
2:16-cv-17508
Bachus & Schanker, LLC
12/15/2016
24
Palmatier v. Sanofi, et al.
Christine Palmatier
2:16-cv-17223
Bachus & Schanker, LLC
12/15/2016
25
Powell v. Sanofi, et al.
Tawonna Powell
2:16-cv-17509
Bachus & Schanker, LLC
12/15/2016
26
Section v. Sanofi, et al.
Annie Section
2:16-cv-17147
Bachus & Schanker, LLC
12/12/2016
27
Sheffield v. Sanofi, et al.
Rosetta Sheffield
2:16-cv-17168
Bachus & Schanker, LLC
12/12/2016
28
Siler v. Sanofi, et al.
Annie Siler
2:16-cv-17094
Bachus & Schanker, LLC
12/12/2016
29
Spencer v. Sanofi, et al.
Kimberly Spencer
2:16-cv-17141
Bachus & Schanker, LLC
12/12/2016
30
Tarver v. Sanofi, et al.
Theresa Tarver
2:17-cv-00094
Bachus & Schanker, LLC
1/5/2017
31
Turner v. Sanofi, et al.
Cynthia Turner
2:16-cv-17199
Bachus & Schanker, LLC
12/12/2016
32
Waller v. Sanofi, et al.
Sarah Waller
2:16-cv-17241
Bachus & Schanker, LLC
12/12/2016
33
Ward v. Sanofi, et al.
Linda Ward
2:16-cv-17493
Bachus & Schanker, LLC
12/15/2016
34
Webb-McConnell v. Sanofi, et al.
Betty Web-McConnell
2:16-cv-17155
Bachus & Schanker, LLC
12/12/2016
35
Williams v. Sanofi, et al.
Daphine Williams
2:16-cv-17220
Bachus & Schanker, LLC
12/12/2016
36
Willis v. Sanofi, et al.
Lisa Willis
2:16-cv-17492
Bachus & Schanker, LLC
12/15/2016
37
Moore v Hospira, Inc.
Debbie Moore
2:19-cv-13488
Bachus & Schanker, LLC (Denver)
11/7/2019
38
Rogers v. Hospira, Inc. et al
Roberta Rogers
2:20-cv-01890
Bachus & Schanker, LLC (Denver)
7/2/2020
39
Byers v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC et al
Sheila Byers
2:17-cv-16959
Bachus & Schanker, LLC (Denver)
12/11/2017
40
Knight v. Sanofi U.S. Services Inc. et al
Michele Knight
2:19-cv-12394
Bachus & Schanker, LLC (Denver)
8/30/2019
41
Manning v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC, et al
Yvonne Manning
2:18-cv-01925
Bachus & Schanker, LLC (Denver)
2/22/2018
42
Melvin v. Hospira, Inc., Inc. et al
Linda Melvin
2:17-cv-9529
Bachus & Schanker, LLC (Denver)
9/23/2017
43
Williams v. Sanofi S.A. et al
Doris Williams
2:16-cv-17044
Bachus & Schanker, LLC (Denver)
12/9/2016
44
Yessilth v. Hospira, Inc. et al
Iris Yessilth
2:17-cv-8166
Bachus & Schanker, LLC (Denver)
8/23/2017
45
Walker (C) v. Sanofi, et al.
Catherine Walker
2:16-cv-17114
Beasley Allen Crow Methvin Portis & Miles, P.C.
12/12/2016
46
Tengesdahl v. Sanofi S.A. et al
Coretta Tengesdahl
2:17-cv-6354
Bruno & Bruno
6/30/2017
47
Ramsey v. Hospira, Inc. et al
Cindy Ramsey
2:19-cv-00473
Canepa Riedy Abele
1/23/2019
48
Bieller v. Hospira, Inc. et al
Linda Bieller
2:20-cv-00767
Fears Nachawati PLLC
3/4/2020
49
Carter v. Sanofi U.S. Services Inc. et al
Cynthia Louise Carter
2:20-cv-00671
Fears Nachawati PLLC
2/26/2020
50
De Anda v. Sanofi U.S. Services Inc. et al
Alicia De Anda
2:20-cv-00694
Fears Nachawati PLLC
2/28/2020
51
Mitchell v. Hospira, Inc., et al
Lori Mitchell
2:20-cv-00728
Fears Nachawati PLLC
3/2/2020
52
Popke v. Hospira, Inc.et al
Brenda Popke
2:20-cv-00752
Fears Nachawati PLLC
3/4/2020
53
Schuller v. Hospira, Inc. et al
Sharyl Schuller
2:20-cv-00731
Fears Nachawati PLLC
3/3/2020
54
Shores v. Hospira, Inc. et al
Teresa Shores
20-cv-00643
Fear Nachawati PLLC
2/21/2020
55
Eastep et al v. Hospira, Inc. et al
Kimberly Eastep
2:19-cv-00031
Fears Nachawati PLLC
1/3/2019
56
Smith v. Sandoz, Inc. et al
Melodie Wells Smith
2:18-cv-14198
Ferrer Poirot Wansbrough (GA)
12/26/2018
57
Wilson v. Sanofi U.S. Services Inc. et al
Stephanie Wilson
2:19-cv-12382
Franco Law PLLC
8/29/2019
58
Gilson v. Sanofi S.A. et al
Kathleen L Gilson
2:17-cv-14003
Goldberg & Osborne LLP (Tucson)
12/1/2017
59
Brewer v. Hospira, Inc. et al
Deborah Brewer
2:19-cv-13102
Grant & Eisenhofer P.A (Delaware)
10/11/2019
60
Matter v. Hospira, Inc. et al
Barbara Matter
2:17-cv-17397
Kirkendall Dwyer LLP (Dallas)
12/15/2017
61
Greenwood v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC et al
Jacqueline Greenwood
2:17-cv-13430
McSweeney/Langevin Law Firm
11/27/2017
62
Thompson v. Hospira, Inc. et al
Theatrice Thompson
2:18-cv-09371
Niemeyer, Grebel & Kruse LLC
10/9/2018
63
Lackey v. Sanofi S.A. et al
Tammie Lackey
2:17-cv-9705
Niemeyer, Grebel & Kruse LLC
9/27/2017
64
Reeder, Martine v. Sanofi U.S. LLC, et al.
Martine Reeder
2:19-cv-13981
Robins Kaplan LLP
12/11/2017
65
Della Rocca v. Hospira, Inc. et al
Lara Della Rocca
2:19-cv-00908
Terry & Thweatt, P.C.
2/5/2019
66
Gardner v. Sanofi U.S. Services Inc. et al
Patricia Gardner
2:18-cv-14157
Terry & Thweatt, P.C.
12/21/2018
67
Howard v. Sanofi U.S. Services Inc. et al
Millie Howard
2:19-cv-00349
Terry & Thweatt, P.C.
1/17/2019
68
Lawrence v. Hospira, Inc. et al
Carolyn Lawrence
2:16-cv-17958
The Maher Law Firm
3/13/2018
69
Adams v. Sanofi U.S. Services Inc. et al
Tessie Adams
2:17-cv-16210
The Mulligan Law Firm
12/9/2017
Exhibit D
# Case Name Plaintiff MDL No. Primary Plaintiffs' Counsel Filed 1 Rogers v. Sanofi S.A. et al Melanie Rogers 2:16- cv-14486 Allan Berger & Associates, PLC 9/6/2016 2 Crawford v. Sanofi, et al. Gwendolyn Crawford 2:16- cv-17151 Bachus & Schanker, LLC 12/12/2016 3 Jefferson v. Sanofi, et al. Charlotte Jefferson 2:17-cv-00756 Bachus & Schanker, LLC 1/27/2017 4 Russell v. v. Sanofi, et al. Madis Russell 2:17-cv-00017 Bachus & Schanker, LLC 1/5/2017 5 Young v. Sanofi, et al. Lorraine Young 2:16-cv-17235 Bachus & Schanker, LLC 12/12/2016 6 Schulze v. Hospira, Inc. et al Yolanda Schulze 2:19-cv-13436 Bachus & Schanker, LLC (Denver) 11/5/2019 7 Clamon v. Sanofi U.S. Services Inc. et al Rhonda Clamon 2:19-cv-03422 Bachus & Schanker, LLC (Denver) 3/26/2019 8 Johnson v. Hospira, Inc., Inc. et al Elizabeth Ann Johnson 2:17-cv-16672 Bachus & Schanker, LLC (Denver) 12/11/2017 9 Johnson v. Sanofi U.S. Services Inc. et al Janice Johnson 2:19-cv-12235 Bachus & Schanker, LLC (Denver) 8/20/2019 10 Ahoe v. Sanofi U.S. Services Inc et al Karen Ahoe 2:19-cv-13928 Baron & Budd, P.C. (Dallas) 11/27/2019 11 Toles v. Accord Healthcare, Inc. et al Valerie Toles 2:17-cv-9758 Brown & Crouppen, P. 9/28/2017 12 Adams v. Sanofi U.S. Services Inc. et al Julia Adams 2:18-cv-11201 Cutter Law, P. C. 11/19/2018 13 Lepore v. Sanofi U.S. Services Inc. et al. Patricia Lepore 2:21-cv-00700 Fears Nachawati, PLLC 4/5/2021 14 Heaton v. Sandoz, Inc. et al Sandra Gerarde Heaton 2:18-cv-14076 Fox & F arley, Attorneys at Law 12/20/2018 19 15 Valencia v. Sanofi S.A. et al Sonia Valencia 2:16-cv-15497 Gomez Iagmin Trial Attorneys 9/9/2016 16 Riker-Wenzel v. Hospira, Inc. et al Cindy Riker-Wenzel 2:19-cv-13107 Grant & Eisenhofer P.A (Delaware) 10/11/2019 17 Hurley v. Sanofi S.A. et al Betty Hurley 2:16-cv-17970 Hughes & Coleman PLLC 12/09/16 18 Cosner v. Sanofi U.S. Services Inc. et al Linda Cosner 2:19-cv-00125 McDonald Worley 1/8/2019 19 Bodden v. Sanofi -Aventis, U.S., Inc. et al Janet Bodden 2:16 -cv-15609 Morris Bart, LLC (New Orleans) 10/15/2016 20 Bunche v. Hospira, Inc. et al Helen Bunche 2:19-cv-01851 Napoli Shkolnik, PLLC (New York) 2/28/2019 21 Davis v. Hospira, Inc. et al Ruby L. Davis 2:19-cv-01847 Napoli Shkolnik, PLLC (New York) 2/28/2019 22 Johnson et al v. Hospira, Inc. et al Lenora Johnson 2:19-cv-01856 Napoli Shkolnik, PLLC (New York) 2/28/2019 23 Abrams v. Hospira, Inc. et al Linda D. Abrams 2:19-cv-01616 Napoli Shkolnik, PLLC (New York) 2/21/2019 24 Alawar v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S. Services Inc. et al Ferial Alawar 2:19-cv-09809 Napoli Shkolnik, PLLC (New York) 4/26/2019 25 Clark v. Sanofi U.S. Services Inc. et al Antoinette Clark 2:19-cv-06751 Napoli Shkolnik, PLLC (New York) 4/2/2019 26 Collins v. Hospira, Inc. et al Sonia Collins 2:19-cv-09395 Napoli Shkolnik, PLLC (New York) 4/15/2019 27 Crumblin v. Hospira, Inc. et al Carol A. Crumblin 2:19-cv-10838 Napoli Shkolnik, PLLC (New York) 5/31/2019 28 F arrington v. Hospira, Inc. et al Erma F arrington 2:19-cv-10586 Napoli Shkolnik, PLLC (New York) 5/21/2019 20 29 Fullmore v. Sandoz, Inc. et al Linda Fullmore 2:19-cv-07035 Napoli Shkolnik, PLLC (New York) 4/2/2019 30 Gill v. Accord Healthcare, Inc. et al Phyllis M. Gill 2:19-cv-09844 Napoli Shkolnik, PLLC (New York) 4/29/2019 31 Grant v. Hospira, Inc. Worldwide, LLC et al Shelby Grant 2:19-cv-01956 Napoli Shkolnik, PLLC (New York) 3/4/2019 32 Hadley v. Sanofi U.S. Services Inc. et al Dorcille Hadley 2:19-cv-09849 Napoli Shkolnik, PLLC (New York) 4/29/2019 33 Hosney v. Hospira, Inc. et al Bendetta Hosney 2:19-cv-09855 Napoli Shkolnik, PLLC (New York) 4/29/2019 34 Hunt-Bluford v. Sanofi U.S. Services Inc. et al Marjorie Hunt-Bluford 2:19-cv-09912 Napoli Shkolnik, PLLC (New York) 4/30/2019 35 Meyers v. Sanofi U.S. Services Inc. et al Deborah Meyers 2:19-cv-11402 Napoli Shkolnik, PLLC (New York) 6/28/2019 36 Mirabella et al v. Hospira, Inc. et al Lillian H. Mirabella 2:19-cv-01961 Napoli Shkolnik, PLLC (New York) 3/4/2019 37 Morgan v. Sandoz, Inc. et al Gayla Morgan 2:19-cv-04340 Napoli Shkolnik, PLLC (New York) 3/28/2019 38 Patterson v. Hospira, Inc. et al Denise Patterson 2:19-cv-02426 Napoli Shkolnik, PLLC (New York) 3/18/2019 39 Phelps v. Hospira, Inc. et al Carla Phelps 2:19-cv-11395 Napoli Shkolnik, PLLC (New York) 6/27/2019 40 Reeves et al v. Hospira, Inc. et al Patsy S. Reeves 2:19-cv-02027 Napoli Shkolnik, PLLC (New York) 3/5/2019 41 Rice et al v.Hospira, Inc. et al Linda Rice 2:19-cv-02026 Napoli Shkolnik, PLLC (New York) 3/5/2019 21 42 Schofield v. Hospira, Inc. et al Valencia A. Schofield 2:19-cv-10097 Napoli Shkolnik, PLLC (New York) 5/6/2019 43 Scott et al v. Hospira, Inc. et al Carole M. Scott 2:19-cv-01974 Napoli Shkolnik, PLLC (New York) 3/4/2019 44 Shular et al v. Hospira, Inc. et al Frances Shular 2:19-cv-02025 Napoli Shkolnik, PLLC (New York) 3/5/2019 45 Tate v. Hospira, Inc. et al Sharon Tate 2:19-cv-02427 Napoli Shkolnik, PLLC (New York) 3/18/2019 46 Thomas v. Sanofi U.S. Services Inc. et al Antoinette Thomas 2:19-cv-11355 Napoli Shkolnik, PLLC (New York) 6/25/2019 47 Hill v. Sanofi U.S. Services Inc. et al Marytina Hill 2:18-cv-10757 Reyes Browne Reilley 11/9/2018 48 Thomason v. SanofiS.A. et al Cindy Thomason 2:17-cv-10773 Schmidt National Law Group 10/17/2017 49 Pahios v. Sanofi U.S. Services Inc. et al Penelope Pahios 2:19-cv-00406 Terry & Thweatt, P.C. 1/18/2019 50 Detrixhe v. Sanofi S.A. et al Karen A. Detrixhe 2:16- cv-15313 The Law Office of David Burkhead 4/15/2016 51 Stone v. Sanofi S.A., et al Stone Anita 2:16- cv-16798 Wendt Law Firm, P.C 12/1/2016 52 Mottola v. Sanofi S.A. et al Kathy Mottola 2:16-cv-15320 Whitfield Bryson & Mason LLP (Raleigh) 5/23/2016