Opinion
C.A. No. 08C-08-247-ASB Supreme Court No. 482, 2011
02-20-2012
ELIZABETH PLUMMER, individually and as Executrix of the Estate of EDMOND PLUMMER, SR., deceased, and EDMOND PLUMMER, JR., JOHN PLUMMER and JAMES PLUMMER, as surviving children of EDMOND PLUMMER, SR., deceased, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. R.T. VANDERBILT COMPANY, INC., Defendant-Appellee.
UPON SECOND REMAND FROM THE DELAWARE SUPREME
COURT
This is the Superior Court's Report to the Supreme Court following its second remand to this Court for the purpose of clarifying the Court's dismissal procedures in connection with the large volume of cases that comprise its asbestos docket.
Regrettably, this Court must report that plaintiff's counsel's representations to the Supreme Court are simply not truthful, and that, contrary to what was stated in plaintiffs' submissions on appeal, the procedure utilized in this case did not "deviate significantly" from "decades" of prior asbestos litigation practice. Furthermore, Plummers' counsel has been on notice of the Court's current practice regarding dismissals at least since December, 2006, when hearings were held for the express purpose of receiving comments from counsel before the current procedure was formally instituted in January 2007. In fact, contrary to counsel's representations to the Supreme Court, counsel was invited to and participated in hearings conducted by then Commissioner David White regarding the change in procedure before it was adopted over five years ago.
Indeed, the dismissal process purportedly described by Plummers' counsel in his submissions to the Supreme Court has not existed in the Superior Court since January 2007. The replacement procedure was the subject of specific Orders to all plaintiffs' attorneys practicing in the asbestos litigation, one of which was specifically directed to the law offices of Jacobs and Crumplar, signed by Judge Joseph Slights and dated January 25, 2007. (Attached as Exhibit A). That procedure, not the one described by counsel to the Supreme Court, has remained in full force and effect since that date and remains in effect today.
This procedure has not been challenged by any lawyer for either plaintiff or defendant in any asbestos litigation since January 2007 until very recently when Robert Jacobs, Esquire, wrote a letter to the Prothonotary objecting to the Court's dismissal of certain cases. It is perhaps not a coincidence that the letter is dated December 22, 2011 and was written while this appeal was pending. This letter, in turn, prompted a motion filed by Defense Coordinating Counsel on behalf of all asbestos defense attorneys strongly objecting to any change in the existing procedures as these have worked well for over five years.
A brief history of how this procedure was adopted helps to explain why the process described by Plummers' counsel no longer exists and why counsel's misrepresentations are especially egregious given the amount of thought and effort that went into the 2007 changes in procedure.
In the early years of this litigation the Court would conduct a periodic "Call of the Calendar," whereby a list of cases would be scheduled for dismissal and interested parties would be notified of the date and time to show cause why dismissal would not be appropriate in any particular instance. As the asbestos docket evolved and the volume of cases steadily increased, with hundreds of asbestos cases being filed each year against hundreds of defendants, it became apparent that the Superior Court needed an improved and more efficient process by which it could clear its docket of closed matters. Resolutions through summary judgment practice or by settlement were extremely common but it was also becoming increasingly difficult to keep track of what was resolved and what was not since individual cases typically had between 10 and 60 defendants.
In late 2006 and early 2007, in an effort to simplify the process of closing these cases, Judge Slights and Commissioner White met with the Prothonotary to devise a new method to dispose of the almost 500 pending cases then facing dismissal. It was decided that a final "Call of the Calendar" would take place on December 28, 2006, and that all plaintiffs' firms and attorneys, as well as Defense Coordinating Counsel would be notified to appear for this final call, at which time they would also be advised that the antiquated and resource-intensive Call-of-the-Calendar approach would be replaced by a more efficient and effective system of closing old files and cases.
Under the new method, it was decided that if the Court had been advised that a case had settled, approximately 30 days after the date when that case was to proceed to trial, the Prothonotary would issue a letter to counsel advising that an Order dismissing the matter would be entered within 30 days (now 60 days post-trial date) unless any party came forward to show good cause why dismissal would be inappropriate.
On the same date as the final call, December 28, 2006, Commissioner White conducted hearings to advise of the anticipated change of practice and to receive comments and input from attorneys regarding any concerns or problems. (Transcript attached as Exhibit B).
As a result of the hearings, it was further agreed that once the matter was closed, the Court could reopen the case for only two purposes: either 1) to pursue an application to enforce the settlement agreement; or 2) to pursue state law claims upon the conclusion of any bankruptcy matters.
Not only was Plummers' counsel notified of the December 2006 hearing and summoned to appear, but counsel was present, fully participated in the vetting process, expressed his agreement with the new procedure, and even offered to assist the Court by taking the lead in drafting a form of letter that would henceforth be the triggering document for dismissal. Specifically, Mr. Crumplar stated:
In re: Asbestos Litig., C.A. No. 77C-ASB-2, at 34: 2-10. (Del. Super. Dec. 28, 2006) (White, Comm'r) (TRANSCRIPT) ("Hearing Transcript"). Initially Crumplar failed to appear for the hearing, prompting the following exchange:
Mr. Rufo: Your Honor, I note the absence of anyone from the Jacobs & Crumplar firm.
The Court: I was going to ask if you wouldn't mind stepping out into the hallway and calling their office. We'll take a brief recess and see what -- it may be that they don't want to participate, but it would be nice to know that.
Mr. Rufo: I have to borrow a phone because -- Mr. Wilson is giving me his.
Eventually Crumplar did show up for the hearing and apologized to the Court, claiming that the date had not been on his calendar.
Within minutes of his arrival, Crumplar heartily endorsed the Court's desire to treat the asbestos cases like any other civil case whereby the parties have 30 days to submit stipulations and releases or the Court would enter a dismissal:
Mr. Crumplar: I think that what is more appropriate is a simple dismissal -- a notice that when a case has been settled, and the parties have informed the Court, that some kind of administrative order that 30 days or at some particular point the case is dismissed.
The Court: Like we do now with all other civil cases?
Mr. Crumplar: Yes. The case is dismissed. There's a provision and, Your Honor, I've discussed this with you in terms of coming up, and I shared it with plaintiffs' counsel and then defense counsel, that if the settlement was not paid, that the Court could revive the case and reopen the matter. I think that is the — that is what is done in federal court,
The Court: Well, that's something for us to consider. And I know, Mr. Crumplar, you were going to try to take a stab at some language on a letter that would -- standard letter, like the ones we currently send out.
Mr. Crumplar: Your Honor, I will have that at least circulated by the end of today.
It's simply a question of having a customized letter, which is, I think, what Your Honor just said, that we simply -- and I do think a letter is appropriate just to cover those -- just due process, which we'll simply say we understand the case is settled, it will be dismissed in 30 days, and we just have the magic language that if there is -- after it is dismissed, there are still unpaid settlements, the Court will entertain to understand the case can be revived. As long as there is that statement, then I will not send a letter. I can't speak for other people, but I think that takes care of it. The purpose of that letter is to simply -- because there could be a case that is not settled that should go ahead, and I think you need that extra - I mean, even in those cases—you still could revive it with mistake; but, you know, I do think as long as we're trying to have standard procedure, I'm not asking the Prothonotary to do something that they don't normally do.Mr. Crumplar later noted:
If we don't have that magic language in there, you're going to get a response; but as long as we have that, I think that's fine . . . I will try to propose that language, submit it to the plaintiffs, Mr. Rufo and I would think within 30 days we -- you could have a standard form.Later during the hearing, Commissioner White gave a directive to counsel which Mr. Crumplar willingly embraced:
The Court: I understand that there is going to be a scheduled plaintiffs' group meeting in early January. I would ask that to the extent that you have any agenda items, that there be not just an agenda item, but you resolve the issue on the content of the letter at that meeting so we will -- "we", meaning the Court, can then start issuing those letters immediately thereafter.
Mr. Crumplar: And I will endeavor to take the lead on that and advise the Court.
HearingTransciptat61: 5-23.
Id. at 62: 16-63: 1..
Id. at 67: 13-22.
After the process was thoroughly discussed and evaluated among the attorneys, and the decision was made to modify the prior procedure, the Court issued a series of six Orders dismissing old cases, including an Order that applied specifically to cases filed by the law firm of Jacobs and Crumplar. (Exhibit B) It should be emphasized that the Orders issued on January 25, 2007 are word-for-word identical to the Order that the Prothonotary has been using ever since, and identical to the Order that was used in this case, which was mailed by the Prothonotary to counsel on May 17, 2011.
This file-closing procedure, which has been in effect since January 2007, has worked remarkably well, and has never been challenged until recently when the Jacobs and Crumplar firm wrote a letter objecting to the procedure on December 22, 2011. Hundreds of cases have been successfully and efficiently dismissed and disposed of through this process.
The importance of certainty and clarity with regard to dismissing these cases and of the entry of an express final Order cannot be underestimated. Given the breadth of the Delaware asbestos docket, unimaginable chaos would result if plaintiffs were permitted to keep these cases open until they saw fit to close them, not to mention the potential for the precise difficulties that have arisen in this appeal.
In summary, the Court responds to the Supreme Court's inquiries as follows:
a) Yes, there is a specific procedure in place for the dismissal of multiple defendants and the issuance of final, appealable Orders in asbestos litigation.
b) The procedure was instituted in January 2007 and is as just described.
c) The procedure does not deviate from practice as it has been conducted since January 2007 and the history and reasons for the change are outlined above.
d) The practice employed here has been the same since January 2007 and has not been modified since.
e) Asbestos counsel, including Jacobs and Crumplar, were notified in 2006 of the change, were invited to participate in a hearing before the change was implemented, participated at the hearing, and have been operating under this procedure for more than five years without objection until the issue of the timeliness of this appeal was presented.
What is most frustrating about Plummers' counsel's misrepresentations to the Supreme Court is the undue amount of time that this Court has expended in having to write not one, but two reports, to explain the inaccuracies, time that could and should have been devoted to other more legitimate matters.
--------
IT IS SO ORDERED.
________________________
PEGGY L. ABLEMAN , JUDGE
Original to Prothonotary
cc: Clerk of the Supreme Court
All Counsel via File & Serve
EXHIBIT A
DAVID A. WHITE
COMMISSIONER
December 20, 2006
TO: All Delaware Plaintiffs' Asbestos Counsel
RE: In Re: Asbestos Litigation, C.A. No. 77C-ASB-2 - Call of the Delaware Asbestos Calendar Dear Counsel:
We have now reviewed all of the pending Delaware asbestos cases, those scheduled for trial and those yet to be scheduled. Thank you again for your assistance with respect to the second list. We have compared the lists of scheduled and unscheduled cases with our master list of all pending Delaware asbestos cases and we have now identified 486 cases we propose to dismiss. Attached is the list of all pending Delaware asbestos cases that are neither scheduled for trial nor to be scheduled for trial, according to the lists you recently provided to us.
We intend to DISMISS every case on the attached list unless you appear in open court on Thursday December 28, 2006 at 9:00 am and SHOW CAUSE why they should not be dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
David A. White
____________
Superior Court Commissioner
attachment
CALL OF THE CALENDAR
PENDING ASBESTOS CASES
+--------------------------------------------------------+ ¦CIVIL ACTION NUMBER ¦PLAINTIFF ¦PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEY ¦ +---------------------+-----------+----------------------¦ ¦78C-10-079 ¦MULHERN ¦JACOBS ¦ +---------------------+-----------+----------------------¦ +---------------------+-----------+----------------------¦ ¦82C-12-102 ¦LOGAN ¦JACOBS ¦ +---------------------+-----------+----------------------¦ +---------------------+-----------+----------------------¦ ¦86C-08-070 ¦LOWE ¦JACOBS ¦ +---------------------+-----------+----------------------¦ +---------------------+-----------+----------------------¦ ¦87C-04-134 ¦NYSTROM ¦JACOBS ¦ +---------------------+-----------+----------------------¦ +---------------------+-----------+----------------------¦ ¦88C-G2-0G1 ¦MERCER ¦JACOBS ¦ +---------------------+-----------+----------------------¦ ¦88C-09-116 ¦NORRIS ¦JACOBS ¦ +---------------------+-----------+----------------------¦ ¦88C-09-184 ¦ERCOLE ¦JACOBS ¦ +---------------------+-----------+----------------------¦ ¦88C-09-199 ¦MUSSER ¦JACOBS ¦ +---------------------+-----------+----------------------¦ ¦88C-10-225 ¦BROOKS ¦JACOBS ¦ +---------------------+-----------+----------------------¦ ¦88C-10-255 ¦ALEXANDER ¦JACOBS ¦ +---------------------+-----------+----------------------¦ ¦88C-11-109 ¦KOWALEWSKI ¦JACOBS ¦ +---------------------+-----------+----------------------¦ +---------------------+-----------+----------------------¦ ¦89C-02-215 ¦BARKER ¦JACOBS ¦ +---------------------+-----------+----------------------¦ ¦89C-05-197 ¦MCDOWELL ¦JACOBS ¦ +---------------------+-----------+----------------------¦ ¦89C-08-187 ¦WARREN ¦JACOBS ¦ +---------------------+-----------+----------------------¦ ¦89C-10-024 ¦HOFFMAN ¦JACOBS ¦ +---------------------+-----------+----------------------¦ ¦89C10-128 ¦WELLS ¦JACOBS ¦ +---------------------+-----------+----------------------¦ ¦89C-10-129 ¦BRASURE ¦JACOBS ¦ +---------------------+-----------+----------------------¦ ¦89C-10-130 ¦SURRICCHIO ¦JACOBS ¦ +---------------------+-----------+----------------------¦ +---------------------+-----------+----------------------¦ ¦90C-01-159 ¦JACKSON ¦JACOBS ¦ +--------------------------------------------------------+
+-------------------------------------------------------+ ¦CIVIL ACTION NUMBE ¦PLAINTIFF ¦PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEY ¦ +--------------------+-----------+----------------------¦ ¦90C-05-037 ¦MCCABE ¦JACOBS ¦ +--------------------+-----------+----------------------¦ ¦90C-05-038 ¦WILSON ¦JACOBS ¦ +--------------------+-----------+----------------------¦ ¦90C-05-167 ¦ANTHONY ¦HADLEY ¦ +--------------------+-----------+----------------------¦ ¦90C-05-191 ¦BIGGS ¦HADLEY ¦ +--------------------+-----------+----------------------¦ ¦90C-07-101 ¦WINGATE ¦JACOBS ¦ +--------------------+-----------+----------------------¦ ¦90C-07-102 ¦SPICER ¦JACOBS ¦ +--------------------+-----------+----------------------¦ ¦90C-07-103 ¦LANE ¦JACOBS ¦ +--------------------+-----------+----------------------¦ ¦90C-07-186 ¦RUDD ¦JACOBS ¦ +--------------------+-----------+----------------------¦ ¦90C-09-067 ¦MARVEL ¦JACOBS ¦ +--------------------+-----------+----------------------¦ ¦90C-09-068 ¦SOMERS ¦JACOBS ¦ +--------------------+-----------+----------------------¦ ¦90C-09-112 ¦VINZINSKI ¦JACOBS ¦ +--------------------+-----------+----------------------¦ ¦90C-11-221 ¦STEELE ¦JACOBS ¦ +--------------------+-----------+----------------------¦ ¦90C-11-222 ¦DAVIDSON ¦JACOBS ¦ +--------------------+-----------+----------------------¦ ¦90C-12-039 ¦TURNER ¦JACOBS ¦ +--------------------+-----------+----------------------¦ ¦90C-12-D40 ¦GARRIS ¦JACOBS ¦ +--------------------+-----------+----------------------¦ ¦90C-12-106 ¦MARVEL ¦JACOBS ¦ +--------------------+-----------+----------------------¦ ¦90C-12-107 ¦BOWDLE ¦JACOBS ¦ +--------------------+-----------+----------------------¦ ¦90C-12-108 ¦SCOTT ¦JACOBS ¦ +--------------------+-----------+----------------------¦ ¦90C-12-109 ¦HILL ¦JACOBS ¦ +--------------------+-----------+----------------------¦ ¦90C-12-139 ¦TAYLOR ¦JACOBS ¦ +--------------------+-----------+----------------------¦ +--------------------+-----------+----------------------¦ ¦91C-01-153 ¦ENGLISH ¦JACOBS ¦ +--------------------+-----------+----------------------¦ ¦91C-03-106 ¦POWELL ¦HADLEY ¦ +--------------------+-----------+----------------------¦ ¦91C-03-166 ¦BORRELLI ¦HADLEY ¦ +--------------------+-----------+----------------------¦ ¦91C-04-046 ¦EWELL ¦JACOBS ¦ +--------------------+-----------+----------------------¦ ¦91C-04-124 ¦WEST ¦JACOBS ¦ +--------------------+-----------+----------------------¦ ¦91C-04-125 ¦REED ¦JACOBS ¦ +--------------------+-----------+----------------------¦ ¦91C-04-153 ¦HARDING ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------------------------------------------+
+-------------------------------------------------------+ ¦CIVIL ACTION NUMBER ¦PLAINTIFF ¦PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEY¦ +---------------------+------------+--------------------¦ ¦91C-04-301 ¦SPADARO ¦JACOBS ¦ +---------------------+------------+--------------------¦ ¦91C-04-303 ¦FLEETWOOD ¦JACOBS ¦ +---------------------+------------+--------------------¦ ¦91C-06-177 ¦JIMINEZ ¦HADLEY ¦ +---------------------+------------+--------------------¦ ¦91C-07-126 ¦PORTER ¦JACOBS ¦ +---------------------+------------+--------------------¦ ¦91C-07-127 ¦PETERSON ¦JACOBS ¦ +---------------------+------------+--------------------¦ ¦91C-07-251 ¦HASTINGS ¦JACOBS ¦ +---------------------+------------+--------------------¦ ¦91C-07-252 ¦BUTLER ¦JACOBS ¦ +---------------------+------------+--------------------¦ ¦91C-07-259 ¦HILL ¦JACOBS ¦ +---------------------+------------+--------------------¦ ¦91C-07-317 ¦KLINE ¦JACOBS ¦ +---------------------+------------+--------------------¦ ¦91C-08-124 ¦MARRO ¦HADLEY ¦ +---------------------+------------+--------------------¦ ¦91C-08-249 ¦MURPHY ¦HADLEY ¦ +---------------------+------------+--------------------¦ ¦91C-08-265 ¦BRZOZOWSKI ¦HADLEY ¦ +---------------------+------------+--------------------¦ ¦91C-09-123 ¦O'NEAL ¦JACOBS ¦ +---------------------+------------+--------------------¦ ¦91C-09-234 ¦KING ¦JACOBS ¦ +---------------------+------------+--------------------¦ ¦91C-10-121 ¦FRY ¦HADLEY ¦ +---------------------+------------+--------------------¦ ¦91C-12-033 ¦DICKERSON ¦JACOBS ¦ +---------------------+------------+--------------------¦ ¦91C-12-154 ¦VAN VORST ¦JACOBS ¦ +---------------------+------------+--------------------¦ ¦91C-12-156 ¦WIGGINS ¦JACOBS ¦ +---------------------+------------+--------------------¦ +---------------------+------------+--------------------¦ ¦92C-01-124 ¦KOWALKO ¦HADLEY ¦ +---------------------+------------+--------------------¦ ¦92C-02-030 ¦DAVIS ¦HADLEY ¦ +---------------------+------------+--------------------¦ ¦92C-02-213 ¦KOLLOCK ¦HADLEY ¦ +---------------------+------------+--------------------¦ ¦92C-03-023 ¦NELSON ¦HADLEY ¦ +---------------------+------------+--------------------¦ ¦92C-03-084 ¦WALLS ¦HADLEY ¦ +---------------------+------------+--------------------¦ ¦92C-03-130 ¦PIZZAIA ¦JACOBS ¦ +---------------------+------------+--------------------¦ ¦92C-03-309 ¦MOORE ¦JACOBS ¦ +---------------------+------------+--------------------¦ ¦92C-03-310 ¦ESKRIDGE ¦JABOBS ¦ +---------------------+------------+--------------------¦ ¦92C-06-097 ¦ADKINS ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------------+ ¦CIVIL ACTION NUMBER ¦PLAINTIFF ¦PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEY¦ +---------------------+---------------+--------------------¦ ¦92C-08-057 ¦ROD EN ¦JACOBS ¦ +---------------------+---------------+--------------------¦ ¦92C-10-006 ¦CIRRIGIONE ¦HADLEY ¦ +---------------------+---------------+--------------------¦ ¦92C-10-087 ¦PANKOWSKI ¦HADLEY ¦ +---------------------+---------------+--------------------¦ ¦92C-11-065 ¦JERMAN ¦JACOBS ¦ +---------------------+---------------+--------------------¦ +---------------------+---------------+--------------------¦ ¦93C-01-141 ¦MULLETT ¦HADLEY ¦ +---------------------+---------------+--------------------¦ ¦93C-02-019 ¦PASSWATERS ¦JACOBS ¦ +---------------------+---------------+--------------------¦ ¦93C-02-239 ¦BISHOP ¦JACOBS ¦ +---------------------+---------------+--------------------¦ ¦93C-03-048 ¦MERRICK ¦JACOBS ¦ +---------------------+---------------+--------------------¦ ¦93C-03-222 ¦POFFENBERGER ¦HADLEY ¦ +---------------------+---------------+--------------------¦ ¦93C-07-051 ¦LIEDUCH ¦HADLEY ¦ +---------------------+---------------+--------------------¦ ¦93C-07-070 ¦MCDOWELL ¦JACOBS ¦ +---------------------+---------------+--------------------¦ ¦93C-07-205 ¦HENDRIX ¦HADLEY ¦ +---------------------+---------------+--------------------¦ ¦93C-07-304 ¦BAILEY ¦JACOBS ¦ +---------------------+---------------+--------------------¦ ¦93C-08-008 ¦GEANOPULOS ¦HADLEY ¦ +---------------------+---------------+--------------------¦ ¦93C-08-013 ¦DANIELS ¦HADLEY ¦ +---------------------+---------------+--------------------¦ ¦93C-08-202 ¦LAVELLE ¦JACOBS ¦ +---------------------+---------------+--------------------¦ ¦93C-09-160 ¦COCHRAN ¦HADLEY ¦ +---------------------+---------------+--------------------¦ ¦ ¦DEMAIO, ¦ ¦ ¦93C-09-173 ¦ ¦HADLEY ¦ ¦ ¦BEATRICE ¦ ¦ +---------------------+---------------+--------------------¦ ¦93C-09-175 ¦DEMAIO, JAMES ¦HADLEY ¦ +---------------------+---------------+--------------------¦ ¦93C-10-096 ¦COMBA ¦JACOBS ¦ +---------------------+---------------+--------------------¦ ¦93C-11-010 ¦FOSKEY ¦JACOBS ¦ +---------------------+---------------+--------------------¦ ¦93C-11-085 ¦MARINER ¦JACOBS ¦ +---------------------+---------------+--------------------¦ ¦93C-11-129 ¦WILSON ¦JACOBS ¦ +---------------------+---------------+--------------------¦ ¦93C-11-131 ¦FAIRCHILD ¦HADLEY ¦ +---------------------+---------------+--------------------¦ ¦93C-11-166 ¦TOBIN ¦JACOBS ¦ +---------------------+---------------+--------------------¦ ¦93C-12-099 ¦MCCLELLAND ¦HADLEY ¦ +----------------------------------------------------------+
+--------------------------------------------------+ ¦CIVIL ACTION NUMBER¦PLAINTIFF¦PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEY¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦93C-12-274 ¦FARREN ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦93C-12-275 ¦ASH ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦93C-12-276 ¦EDWARDS ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦94C-01-018 ¦STEWART ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦94C-01-037 ¦JONES ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦94C-01-038 ¦PUSEY ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦94C-01-049 ¦SHOCKLEY ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦94C-01-21 ¦MOORE ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦94C-01-22 ¦PIANKA ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦94C-02-069 ¦MURPHY ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦94C-02-170 ¦HYNSON ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦94C-03-011 ¦GEORGE ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦94C-04-114 ¦AUGUST ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦94C-07-035 ¦CALVERT ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦94C-07-115 ¦STEWART ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦94C-07-162 ¦JOHNSON ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦94C-07-167 ¦LORD ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦94C-08-001 ¦HOLLEGER ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦94C-08-0I4 ¦WILLLEY ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦94C-10-164 ¦SHIPE ¦CRUMPLAR ¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦94C-10-223 ¦CROCKETT ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦94C-11-110 ¦WHEATLEY ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦94C-11-226 ¦EMMELL ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦95C-01-202 ¦MCDOWELL ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦95C-02-019 ¦BOOZ ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦95C-03-123 ¦MESSICK ¦JACOBS ¦ +--------------------------------------------------+
+-----------------------------------------------------+ ¦CIVIL ACTION NUMBER¦PLAINTIFF ¦PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEY¦ +-------------------+------------+--------------------¦ ¦95C-04-097 ¦STOOPS ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+------------+--------------------¦ ¦95C-05-064 ¦RO BISON ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+------------+--------------------¦ ¦95C-05-085 ¦DE BONIS ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+------------+--------------------¦ ¦95C-06-174 ¦FORAKER ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+------------+--------------------¦ ¦95C-06-284 ¦WALLACE ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+------------+--------------------¦ ¦95C-06-285 ¦WARDELL ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+------------+--------------------¦ ¦95C-07-058 ¦CAUDILL ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+------------+--------------------¦ ¦95C-07-167 ¦SHEA ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+------------+--------------------¦ ¦95C-08-027 ¦CHOMA ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+------------+--------------------¦ ¦95C-08-185 ¦LINGENFELTER¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+------------+--------------------¦ ¦95C-08-242 ¦FULLER ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+------------+--------------------¦ ¦95C-11-009 ¦LODGE ¦LEWIS ¦ +-------------------+------------+--------------------¦ +-------------------+------------+--------------------¦ ¦96C-01-142 ¦STEWARD ¦CRUMPLAR ¦ +-------------------+------------+--------------------¦ ¦96C-01-144 ¦STIGUANO ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+------------+--------------------¦ ¦96C-02-125 ¦JOSWICK ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+------------+--------------------¦ ¦96C-03-106 ¦RUSSELL ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+------------+--------------------¦ ¦96C-03-181 ¦COLE ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+------------+--------------------¦ ¦96C-03-252 ¦GINN ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+------------+--------------------¦ ¦96C-05-266 ¦FLEETWOOD ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+------------+--------------------¦ ¦96C-06-156 ¦PEDRICK ¦HADLEY ¦ +-------------------+------------+--------------------¦ ¦96C-07-169 ¦GRIFFITH ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+------------+--------------------¦ ¦96C-07-271 ¦REED ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+------------+--------------------¦ ¦96C-10-028 ¦KUBASKO ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+------------+--------------------¦ ¦96C-10-150 ¦MESSICK ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+------------+--------------------¦ ¦96C-10-192 ¦WHEATON ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+------------+--------------------¦ ¦96C-10-222 ¦SQUIER ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+------------+--------------------¦ ¦96C-11-028 ¦SHAW ¦JACOBS ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------+
+---------------------------------------------------+ ¦CIVIL ACTION NUMBER¦PLAINTIFF ¦PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEY¦ +-------------------+----------+--------------------¦ ¦96C-12-165 ¦PITTMAN ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+----------+--------------------¦ ¦97C-01-244 ¦THOMPSON ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+----------+--------------------¦ ¦97C-02-023 ¦CARTER ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+----------+--------------------¦ ¦97C-02-030 ¦COMBS ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+----------+--------------------¦ ¦97C-02-220 ¦GRIFFITH ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+----------+--------------------¦ ¦97C-03-056 ¦WILLEY ¦LEWIS ¦ +-------------------+----------+--------------------¦ ¦97C-03-114 ¦GOLDEN ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+----------+--------------------¦ ¦97C-04-098 ¦BAKER ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+----------+--------------------¦ ¦97C-05-05G ¦ELLIS ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+----------+--------------------¦ ¦97C-05-184 ¦KOWALEWSKI¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+----------+--------------------¦ ¦97C-07-223 ¦SALVE RIO ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+----------+--------------------¦ ¦97C-08-064 ¦HILL ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+----------+--------------------¦ ¦97C-08-087 ¦CHANEY ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+----------+--------------------¦ ¦97C-09-135 ¦LYONS ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+----------+--------------------¦ ¦97C-10-112 ¦RUSZKOWSKI¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+----------+--------------------¦ ¦97C-10-153 ¦HITCHENS ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+----------+--------------------¦ ¦97C-10-237 ¦LLOYD ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+----------+--------------------¦ ¦97C-11-011 ¦DONOFRIO ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+----------+--------------------¦ ¦97C-11-27 ¦MARCHESE ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+----------+--------------------¦ ¦97C-11-228 ¦PORTER ¦CRUMPLAR ¦ +-------------------+----------+--------------------¦ ¦97C-12-019 ¦TR ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+----------+--------------------¦ ¦97C-12-101 ¦BUCKLAND ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+----------+--------------------¦ ¦97C-12-183 ¦RICHARDSON¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+----------+--------------------¦ ¦97C-12-229 ¦FERGUSON ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+----------+--------------------¦ +-------------------+----------+--------------------¦ ¦98C-01-012 ¦PAOLETTT ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+----------+--------------------¦ ¦98C-01-021 ¦MEGILL ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+----------+--------------------¦ ¦98C-02-124 ¦LITCHKO ¦JACOBS ¦ +---------------------------------------------------+
+--------------------------------------------------+ ¦CIVIL ACTION NUMBER¦PLAINTIFF¦PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEY¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦98C-03-111 ¦SNYDER ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦98C-03-291 ¦ELLIS ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦98004-123 ¦MILLER ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦98C-05-047 ¦NACK ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦98C-05-049 ¦STEGER ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦98C-05-125 ¦FIDYK ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦98C-06-043 ¦HILL ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦98C-06-324 ¦FARRALL ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦98C-06-325 ¦WALLER ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦98C-07-021 ¦EMPSON ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦98C-07-056 ¦WALLS ¦CRUMPLAR ¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦98C-07-279 ¦WRIGHT ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦98C-08-043 ¦MARTIN ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦98C-08-123 ¦PAVLOSKI ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦98C-09-G07 ¦PETERS ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦98C-09-063 ¦JOHNSON ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦98C-10-061 ¦BRAND ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦98C-11-058 ¦WATSON ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦98C-12-184 ¦COPES ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦98C-12-229 ¦TISDEL ¦CRUMPLAR ¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦98C-12-258 ¦WATERS ¦HADLEY ¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦99C-01-057 ¦BRADFORD ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦99C-01-173 ¦MEADOWS ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦99C-01-174 ¦ZIMMERMAN¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦99C-01-200 ¦HAYDEN ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦99C-02-027 ¦WARDELL ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦99C-02-044 ¦FRANZONE ¦JACOBS ¦ +--------------------------------------------------+
+--------------------------------------------------+ ¦CIVIL ACTION NUMBER¦PLAINTIFF¦PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEY¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦99C-02-085 ¦BEST ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦99C-02-174 ¦DIMATTEO ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦99C-02-238 ¦DELCOLLO ¦HADLEY ¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦99C-02-278 ¦FLEETWOOD¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦99C-03-034 ¦LISS ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦99C-03-062 ¦REGINALD ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦99C-03-113 ¦BEGLEY ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦99C-03-200 ¦MOROSKI ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦99C-03-286 ¦JACKSON ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦99C-04-005 ¦BANNING ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦99C-04-138 ¦MOYER ¦HADLEY ¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦99C-04-225 ¦DOODY ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦99C-04-319 ¦FRIEND ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦99C-05-053 ¦POYNTER ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦99C-05-183 ¦CALHOUN ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦99C-07-070 ¦EWELL ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦99C-07-304 ¦DAVIS ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦99C-08-094 ¦BROWN ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦99C-09-038 ¦EDWARDS ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦99C-09-074 ¦DONOVAN ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦99C-09-144 ¦SMITH ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦99C-09-190 ¦SHOVLIN ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦99C-09-291 ¦AINNWORTH¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦99C-10-079 ¦LAMBERT ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦99C-10-207 ¦LAYTON ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦99C-10-208 ¦HENRY ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦99C-11-106 ¦SCRUGGS ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦99C-11-268 ¦DIXON ¦JACOBS ¦ +--------------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------+ ¦CIVIL ACTION NUMBER¦PLAINTIFF ¦PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEY¦ +-------------------+-----------+--------------------¦ ¦99C-12-003 ¦PENN ¦HADLEY ¦ +-------------------+-----------+--------------------¦ ¦99012-120 ¦JOYNER ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+-----------+--------------------¦ ¦99C-12-130 ¦OPALCZYRSKI¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+-----------+--------------------¦ ¦99C-12-194 ¦MUTTER ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+-----------+--------------------¦ ¦99C-12-254 ¦STELTZER ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+-----------+--------------------¦ +-------------------+-----------+--------------------¦ ¦00C-03-036 ¦BARBAS ¦HADLEY ¦ +-------------------+-----------+--------------------¦ ¦00C-04-106 ¦JERNIGAN ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+-----------+--------------------¦ ¦00C-04-162 ¦CASH ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+-----------+--------------------¦ ¦OOC-04-254 ¦WILFONG ¦HADLEY ¦ +-------------------+-----------+--------------------¦ ¦OOC-05-024 ¦MILLER ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+-----------+--------------------¦ ¦OOC-05-030 ¦PARENT ¦CRUMPLAR ¦ +-------------------+-----------+--------------------¦ ¦OOC-05-045 ¦RIGBY ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+-----------+--------------------¦ ¦OOC-05-059 ¦HOMA ¦FORCINA ¦ +-------------------+-----------+--------------------¦ ¦OOC-05-098 ¦MANN ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+-----------+--------------------¦ ¦00C-05-099 ¦SMITH ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+-----------+--------------------¦ ¦00C-05-127 ¦MALICE ¦CRUMPLAR ¦ +-------------------+-----------+--------------------¦ ¦00C-05-128 ¦CONSOLE ¦FORCINA ¦ +-------------------+-----------+--------------------¦ ¦00C-05-129 ¦TULL ¦CRUMPLAR ¦ +-------------------+-----------+--------------------¦ ¦00C-05-130 ¦WALKER ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+-----------+--------------------¦ ¦00C-05-209 ¦MCCLAY ¦CRUMPLAR ¦ +-------------------+-----------+--------------------¦ ¦00C-05-210 ¦MEOGROSSI ¦CRUMPLAR ¦ +-------------------+-----------+--------------------¦ ¦00C-05-211 ¦HAMMOND ¦CRUMPLAR ¦ +-------------------+-----------+--------------------¦ ¦00C-05-212 ¦STAFFORD ¦CRUMPLAR ¦ +-------------------+-----------+--------------------¦ ¦00C-05-213 ¦DAWSON ¦CRUMPLAR ¦ +-------------------+-----------+--------------------¦ ¦00C-05-267 ¦FREE ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+-----------+--------------------¦ ¦00C-05-282 ¦EMMI ¦CRUMPLAR ¦ +-------------------+-----------+--------------------¦ ¦00C-06-004 ¦ALLS ¦HADLEY ¦ +----------------------------------------------------+
+-------------------------------------------------------+ ¦CIVIL ACTION NUMBER¦PLAINTIFF ¦PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEY¦ +-------------------+--------------+--------------------¦ ¦OOC-06-047 ¦WILLIAMS ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+--------------+--------------------¦ ¦00C-06-129 ¦WISEMAN ¦LEWIS ¦ +-------------------+--------------+--------------------¦ ¦00C-06-149 ¦SUTTON ¦HADLEY ¦ +-------------------+--------------+--------------------¦ ¦00C-06-179 ¦NIBLETT ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+--------------+--------------------¦ ¦00C-06-180 ¦HARMON ¦HADLEY ¦ +-------------------+--------------+--------------------¦ ¦00C-06-210 ¦KOLB ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+--------------+--------------------¦ ¦OOC-06-260 ¦BARGELSKI ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+--------------+--------------------¦ ¦00C-07-009 ¦PANKIW ¦CURMPLAR ¦ +-------------------+--------------+--------------------¦ ¦00C-07-117 ¦WILLIAMS ¦HADLEY ¦ +-------------------+--------------+--------------------¦ ¦00C-07-185 ¦BARSKY ¦CRUMPLAR ¦ +-------------------+--------------+--------------------¦ ¦00C-08-029 ¦HEADLEY ¦HADLEY ¦ +-------------------+--------------+--------------------¦ ¦00C-08-139 ¦ASHCRAFT ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+--------------+--------------------¦ ¦OOC-08-179 ¦LYNCH ¦HADLEY ¦ +-------------------+--------------+--------------------¦ ¦OOC-08-209 ¦DESMOND ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+--------------+--------------------¦ ¦OOC-09-034 ¦FORRESTER ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+--------------+--------------------¦ ¦00C-09-088 ¦WALDEN ¦CRUMPLAR ¦ +-------------------+--------------+--------------------¦ ¦OOC-09-100 ¦SMITH, SANDY ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+--------------+--------------------¦ ¦OOC-09-141 ¦SMITH, CLAYTON¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+--------------+--------------------¦ ¦00C-09-161 ¦MCLAUGHLIN ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+--------------+--------------------¦ ¦00C-10-036 ¦ARTHUR ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+--------------+--------------------¦ ¦OOC-10-050 ¦WALLEY ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+--------------+--------------------¦ ¦OOC-10-142 ¦PYLE ¦CRUMPLAR ¦ +-------------------+--------------+--------------------¦ ¦OOC-10-143 ¦COLLINS ¦LEWIS ¦ +-------------------+--------------+--------------------¦ ¦OOC-11-001 ¦DONAHUE ¦HADLEY ¦ +-------------------+--------------+--------------------¦ ¦OOC-11-075 ¦STEPPI ¦HADLEY ¦ +-------------------+--------------+--------------------¦ ¦OOC-11-091 ¦SWANSON ¦HADLEY ¦ +-------------------+--------------+--------------------¦ ¦OOC-11-159 ¦FASSEL ¦CURMPLAR ¦ +-------------------+--------------+--------------------¦ ¦00C-11-261 ¦HENSON ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------------------------------------------+
+--------------------------------------------------+ ¦CIVIL ACTION NUMBER¦PLAINTIFF¦PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEY¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦OOC-11-262 ¦HARSHA ¦CRUMPLAR ¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦OOC-12-113 ¦VINCENT ¦HADLEY ¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦00C-12-177 ¦DAWSON ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦00C-12-224 ¦WILSON ¦CURMPLAR ¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦01C-01-021 ¦MAHALEY ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦01C-01-138 ¦DINE EN ¦HADLEY ¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦01C-01-158 ¦ALLEN ¦HADLEY ¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦01C-01-176 ¦NAYLOR ¦CRUMPLAR ¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦01C-01-178 ¦KOSEK ¦CRUMPLAR ¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦01C-01-277 ¦JANVIER ¦HADLEY ¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦01C-01-002 ¦CAIN ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦01C-01-003 ¦CARR ¦LEWIS ¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦01C-01-042 ¦CURRINDER¦CRUMPLAR ¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦01C-01-043 ¦MCBIRDE ¦HADLEY ¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦01C-01-200 ¦TUSIO ¦HADLEY ¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦01C-03-D88 ¦HUBER ¦CRUMPLAR ¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦01C-04-001 ¦GRANT ¦HADLEY ¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦01C-01-069 ¦VADALA ¦HADLEY ¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦01C-04-168 ¦NAI ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦01C-05-037 ¦MEARS ¦HADLEY ¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦01C-05-038 ¦SHIELDS ¦HADLEY ¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦01C-05-166 ¦LONG ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦01C-05-226 ¦WARWARK ¦HADLEY ¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦01C-05-259 ¦KILOSKI ¦HADLEY ¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦01C-05-260 ¦MULROONEY¦HADLEY ¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦01C-06-039 ¦CARROW ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦01C-06-078 ¦CONGO ¦HADLEY ¦ +--------------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------+ ¦CIVIL ACTION NUMBER¦PLAINTIFF ¦PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEY¦ +-------------------+-----------+--------------------¦ ¦01C-06-092 ¦SANBON ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+-----------+--------------------¦ ¦01C-06-094 ¦WARWICK ¦HADLEY ¦ +-------------------+-----------+--------------------¦ ¦01C-06-111 ¦HICKMAN ¦HADLEY ¦ +-------------------+-----------+--------------------¦ ¦01C-06-112 ¦SPIVEY ¦HADLEY ¦ +-------------------+-----------+--------------------¦ ¦01C-06-113 ¦PEACE ¦HADLEY ¦ +-------------------+-----------+--------------------¦ ¦01C-06-114 ¦HETRICK ¦HADLEY ¦ +-------------------+-----------+--------------------¦ ¦01C-06-138 ¦SNAVELY ¦HADLEY ¦ +-------------------+-----------+--------------------¦ ¦O1C-06-139 ¦DIFRANCESCO¦HADLEY ¦ +-------------------+-----------+--------------------¦ ¦01C-06-140 ¦DEERY ¦HADLEY ¦ +-------------------+-----------+--------------------¦ ¦01C-06-141 ¦IRWIN ¦HADLEY ¦ +-------------------+-----------+--------------------¦ ¦01C-06-142 ¦KELLER ¦HADLEY ¦ +-------------------+-----------+--------------------¦ ¦01C-06-143 ¦NEUTZ ¦HADLEY ¦ +-------------------+-----------+--------------------¦ ¦01C-06-153 ¦STEPTOE ¦HADLEY ¦ +-------------------+-----------+--------------------¦ ¦01C-06-310 ¦FEDEROWICZ ¦HADLEY ¦ +-------------------+-----------+--------------------¦ ¦01C-07-088 ¦SPENCE ¦HADLEY ¦ +-------------------+-----------+--------------------¦ ¦01C-07-102 ¦DONAWAY ¦HADLEY ¦ +-------------------+-----------+--------------------¦ ¦01C-07-120 ¦DAVIS ¦HADLEY ¦ +-------------------+-----------+--------------------¦ ¦01C-07-145 ¦MCMILLAN ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+-----------+--------------------¦ ¦01C-08-068 ¦SHUPE ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+-----------+--------------------¦ ¦01C-08-114 ¦ACHENBACH ¦HADLEY ¦ +-------------------+-----------+--------------------¦ ¦01C-08-124 ¦COLE ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+-----------+--------------------¦ ¦01C-08-126 ¦JONES ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+-----------+--------------------¦ ¦01C-08-257 ¦STIDHAM ¦CURMPLAR ¦ +-------------------+-----------+--------------------¦ ¦01C-08-290 ¦GIESECKE ¦CURMPLAR ¦ +-------------------+-----------+--------------------¦ ¦01C-09-123 ¦WYSZYNSKI ¦CRUMPLAR ¦ +-------------------+-----------+--------------------¦ ¦01C-10-063 ¦ROCA ¦HADLEY ¦ +-------------------+-----------+--------------------¦ ¦01C-10-079 ¦DAWSON ¦WILSON ¦ +-------------------+-----------+--------------------¦ ¦01C-10-173 ¦TOWNSEND ¦HADLEY ¦ +----------------------------------------------------+
+-----------------------------------------------------+ ¦CIVIL ACTION NUMBER¦PLAINTIFF ¦PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEY¦ +-------------------+------------+--------------------¦ ¦01C-10-239 ¦PARCHETT ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+------------+--------------------¦ ¦01C-11-061 ¦JOHNSON ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+------------+--------------------¦ ¦01C-11-094 ¦CARROLL ¦LEWIS ¦ +-------------------+------------+--------------------¦ ¦01C-11-099 ¦SMITH ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+------------+--------------------¦ ¦01C-11-131 ¦FORD ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+------------+--------------------¦ ¦01C-11-204 ¦REBURN ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+------------+--------------------¦ ¦01C-11-205 ¦WARNER ¦CRUMPLAR ¦ +-------------------+------------+--------------------¦ ¦01C-11-221 ¦SZC2EPKOWSKI¦HADLEY ¦ +-------------------+------------+--------------------¦ ¦01C-11-238 ¦SMITH ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+------------+--------------------¦ ¦01C-11-265 ¦SIEBENROCK ¦GADBOIS ¦ +-------------------+------------+--------------------¦ ¦01C-12-061 ¦MILLER ¦CRUMPLAR ¦ +-------------------+------------+--------------------¦ ¦01C-12-155 ¦DIPERSIO ¦HADLEY ¦ +-------------------+------------+--------------------¦ ¦01C-12-192 ¦JACKSON ¦CRUMPLAR ¦ +-------------------+------------+--------------------¦ ¦01C-12-210 ¦DIORIO ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+------------+--------------------¦ +-------------------+------------+--------------------¦ ¦02C-01-056 ¦MERGENTHALER¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+------------+--------------------¦ ¦02C-01-203 ¦DAGE ¦HADLEY ¦ +-------------------+------------+--------------------¦ ¦02C-02-013 ¦BARBER ¦HADLEY ¦ +-------------------+------------+--------------------¦ ¦02C-02-051 ¦HERBIN ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+------------+--------------------¦ ¦02C-02-052 ¦DAVIS ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+------------+--------------------¦ ¦02C-02-053 ¦WYKPISZ ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+------------+--------------------¦ ¦02C-02-068 ¦SNIEGOWSKI ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+------------+--------------------¦ ¦02C-02-086 ¦BOMBALA ¦CRUMPLAR ¦ +-------------------+------------+--------------------¦ ¦02C-02-111 ¦TESTERMAN ¦CRUMPLAR ¦ +-------------------+------------+--------------------¦ ¦02C-02-112 ¦HUDSON ¦CRUMPLAR ¦ +-------------------+------------+--------------------¦ ¦02C-02-134 ¦SMOLKA ¦HADLEY ¦ +-------------------+------------+--------------------¦ ¦02C-02-2Q4 ¦BRADY ¦HADLEY ¦ +-------------------+------------+--------------------¦ ¦02C-02-208 ¦DONOVAN ¦LEWIS ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------+ ¦CIVIL ACTION NUMBER¦PLAINTIFF ¦PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEY¦ +-------------------+-----------+--------------------¦ ¦02C-02-209 ¦WOOTEN ¦LEWIS ¦ +-------------------+-----------+--------------------¦ ¦02C-02-210 ¦MURPHY ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+-----------+--------------------¦ ¦02C-03-001 ¦MCMULLEN ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+-----------+--------------------¦ ¦02C-03-002 ¦WILLIAMS ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+-----------+--------------------¦ ¦02C-03-003 ¦FONTO ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+-----------+--------------------¦ ¦02C-03-004 ¦MENSINGER ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+-----------+--------------------¦ ¦02C-03-043 ¦PUGH ¦HADLEY ¦ +-------------------+-----------+--------------------¦ ¦02C-03-142 ¦SHIVELY ¦HADLEY ¦ +-------------------+-----------+--------------------¦ ¦02C-03-220 ¦WATTS ¦CURMPLAR ¦ +-------------------+-----------+--------------------¦ ¦02C-03-262 ¦BETTS ¦CURMPLAR ¦ +-------------------+-----------+--------------------¦ ¦02C-04-005 ¦CIAMARICONE¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+-----------+--------------------¦ ¦02C-04-006 ¦BROBST ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+-----------+--------------------¦ ¦02C-04-007 ¦WOOSTER ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+-----------+--------------------¦ ¦02C-04-030 ¦INSLEY ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+-----------+--------------------¦ ¦02C-04-031 ¦CLARK ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+-----------+--------------------¦ ¦02C-04-068 ¦HAUCK ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+-----------+--------------------¦ ¦02C-04-087 ¦WILSON ¦CRUMPLAR ¦ +-------------------+-----------+--------------------¦ ¦02C-04-107 ¦NEDELKA ¦HADLEY ¦ +-------------------+-----------+--------------------¦ ¦02C-04-109 ¦HORIEL ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+-----------+--------------------¦ ¦02C-04-129 ¦BELL ¦CRUMPLAR ¦ +-------------------+-----------+--------------------¦ ¦02C-04-145 ¦EVANS ¦CRUMPLAR ¦ +-------------------+-----------+--------------------¦ ¦02C-04-232 ¦ROBINSON ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+-----------+--------------------¦ ¦02C-04-269 ¦IRWIN ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+-----------+--------------------¦ ¦02C-05-022 ¦RICHARDSON ¦CRUMPLAR ¦ +-------------------+-----------+--------------------¦ ¦02C-05-087 ¦CIAFARDO ¦HADLEY ¦ +-------------------+-----------+--------------------¦ ¦02C-05-101 ¦DONOVAN ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+-----------+--------------------¦ ¦02C-05-102 ¦COULBOURNE ¦LEWIS ¦ +-------------------+-----------+--------------------¦ ¦02C-05-103 ¦CLEMENTONI ¦LEWIS ¦ +----------------------------------------------------+
+----------------------------------------------------+ ¦CIVIL ACTION NUMBER¦PLAINTIFF ¦PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEY¦ +-------------------+-----------+--------------------¦ ¦02C-05-214 ¦WITT ¦HADLEY ¦ +-------------------+-----------+--------------------¦ ¦02C-06-017 ¦GRESMER ¦CRUMPLAR ¦ +-------------------+-----------+--------------------¦ ¦02C-06-124 ¦SORENSEN ¦CRUMPLAR ¦ +-------------------+-----------+--------------------¦ ¦02C-06-130 ¦WAISHES ¦CRUMPLAR ¦ +-------------------+-----------+--------------------¦ ¦02C-06-209 ¦CHASE ¦HADLEY ¦ +-------------------+-----------+--------------------¦ ¦02C-06-247 ¦MCVEY ¦HADLEY ¦ +-------------------+-----------+--------------------¦ ¦02C-07-006 ¦SIMMONS ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+-----------+--------------------¦ ¦02C-07-091 ¦KNOX ¦HADLEY ¦ +-------------------+-----------+--------------------¦ ¦02C-07-116 ¦GINOCCHIO ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+-----------+--------------------¦ ¦02C-07-251 ¦TRADER ¦LEWIS ¦ +-------------------+-----------+--------------------¦ ¦02C-07-252 ¦TRELLA ¦CRUMPLAR ¦ +-------------------+-----------+--------------------¦ ¦02C-07-266 ¦DAMIANI ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+-----------+--------------------¦ ¦02C-08-001 ¦MITSDARFER ¦HADLEY ¦ +-------------------+-----------+--------------------¦ ¦02C-08-015 ¦MILANO ¦CRUMPLAR ¦ +-------------------+-----------+--------------------¦ ¦02C-08-043 ¦GUHL ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+-----------+--------------------¦ ¦02C-08-066 ¦KOUKEDIS ¦HADLEY ¦ +-------------------+-----------+--------------------¦ ¦02C-08-094 ¦NICKLE ¦HADLEY ¦ +-------------------+-----------+--------------------¦ ¦02C-08-182 ¦COFRANCESCO¦HADLEY ¦ +-------------------+-----------+--------------------¦ ¦02C-08-183 ¦PEDRICK ¦HADLEY ¦ +-------------------+-----------+--------------------¦ ¦02C-08-218 ¦NESMITH ¦CRUMPLAR ¦ +-------------------+-----------+--------------------¦ ¦02C-08-268 ¦STEVENSON ¦HADLEY ¦ +-------------------+-----------+--------------------¦ ¦02C-08-295 ¦MARCHESE ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+-----------+--------------------¦ ¦02C-10-018 ¦VINCENT ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+-----------+--------------------¦ ¦02C-10-019 ¦MCLEMORE ¦LEWIS ¦ +-------------------+-----------+--------------------¦ ¦02C-10-065 ¦RANDOLPH ¦LEWIS ¦ +-------------------+-----------+--------------------¦ ¦02C-10-092 ¦CLAUSEN ¦LEWIS ¦ +-------------------+-----------+--------------------¦ ¦02C-10-10I ¦NOWAK ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+-----------+--------------------¦ ¦02C-10-184 ¦SAXTON ¦LEWIS ¦ +----------------------------------------------------+
+---------------------------------------------------+ ¦CIVIL ACTION NUMBER¦PLAINTIFF ¦PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEY¦ +-------------------+----------+--------------------¦ ¦02C-10-220 ¦KLINE ¦LEWIS ¦ +-------------------+----------+--------------------¦ ¦02C-11-001 ¦MECKE ¦HADLEY ¦ +-------------------+----------+--------------------¦ ¦02C-11-053 ¦THOMAS ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+----------+--------------------¦ ¦02C-11-054 ¦RICHARDSON¦CRUMPLAR ¦ +-------------------+----------+--------------------¦ ¦02C-11-133 ¦OWENS ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+----------+--------------------¦ ¦02C-12-081 ¦BUCKMAN ¦CRUMPLAR ¦ +-------------------+----------+--------------------¦ ¦02C-12-200 ¦REED ¦LEWIS ¦ +-------------------+----------+--------------------¦ ¦02C-12-230 ¦WISEMAN ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+----------+--------------------¦ ¦02C-12-243 ¦SMITH ¦CRUMPLAR ¦ +-------------------+----------+--------------------¦ +-------------------+----------+--------------------¦ ¦O3C-01-115 ¦CUPETO ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+----------+--------------------¦ ¦02C-01-122 ¦JAMAROWICZ¦LEWIS ¦ +-------------------+----------+--------------------¦ ¦03C-02-114 ¦PLUMMER ¦CRUMPLAR ¦ +-------------------+----------+--------------------¦ ¦03C-03-045 ¦WINDSOR ¦LEWIS ¦ +-------------------+----------+--------------------¦ ¦02C-03-189 ¦SPENCER ¦CRUMPLAR ¦ +-------------------+----------+--------------------¦ ¦02C-03-261 ¦MCLAUGHLIN¦LEWIS ¦ +-------------------+----------+--------------------¦ ¦03C-04-237 ¦CARTER ¦ARNDT ¦ +-------------------+----------+--------------------¦ ¦03C-04-238 ¦EDWARDS ¦ARNDT ¦ +-------------------+----------+--------------------¦ ¦02C-04-239 ¦AUGUST ¦ARNDT ¦ +-------------------+----------+--------------------¦ ¦02C-04-240 ¦JACKSON ¦ARNDT ¦ +-------------------+----------+--------------------¦ ¦02C-04-241 ¦WIGGINS ¦ARNDT ¦ +-------------------+----------+--------------------¦ ¦02C-04-242 ¦MORTINER ¦ARNDT ¦ +-------------------+----------+--------------------¦ ¦03C-04-243 ¦VINZINSKI ¦ARNDT ¦ +-------------------+----------+--------------------¦ ¦03C-04-244 ¦BROOKS ¦ARNDT ¦ +-------------------+----------+--------------------¦ ¦03C-04-267 ¦IGBAL ¦CRUMPLAR ¦ +-------------------+----------+--------------------¦ ¦03C-04-307 ¦CLAYVILLE ¦CRUMPLAR ¦ +-------------------+----------+--------------------¦ ¦03C-05-030 ¦BIRCH ¦HADLEY ¦ +-------------------+-------------------------------¦ ¦03C-05-038 ¦MINUS | CRUMPLAR ¦ +---------------------------------------------------+
+--------------------------------------------------+ ¦CIVIL ACTION NUMBER¦PLAINTIFF¦PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEY¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦03C-07-114 ¦HUMPHREY ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦03C-09-026 ¦FORRESTER¦CRUMPLAR ¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦03C-11-077 ¦PETERS ¦CRUMPLAR ¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦03C-11-117 ¦BUSH ¦LEWIS ¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦04C-01-070 ¦HIRNEISEN¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦04C-02-310 ¦MOORE ¦GADBOIS ¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦04C-03-198 ¦ARMSTRONG¦CRUMPLAR ¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦04C-03-199 ¦SPENCER ¦CRUMPLAR ¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦04C-03-268 ¦WINDSOR ¦LEWIS ¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦ ¦LAMBERT, ¦ ¦ ¦04C-03-269 ¦ ¦CRUMPLAR ¦ ¦ ¦BERNICE ¦ ¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦04C-06-302 ¦SWEETMAN ¦HAGER ¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦05C-01-118 ¦QUESADA ¦HAGER ¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦05C-05-242 ¦PATE ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦05C-05-246 ¦ABOU ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦05C-05-270 ¦ROZENBOOM¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦05C-05-273 ¦JURGENS ¦JACOBS ¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦05C-05-302 ¦SMITH ¦BIFFERATO ¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦05C-06-057 ¦JONES ¦BIFFERATO ¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦05C-06-176 ¦WOOLSTON ¦BIFFERATO ¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦05C-07-123 ¦MACEMORE ¦ARNDT ¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦05007-135 ¦FAKE ¦ARNDT ¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦05C-07-176 ¦SANDERS ¦ARNDT ¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦05C-07-177 ¦CAPRIOTTI¦BIFFERATO ¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦05C-07-178 ¦BRESSANI ¦BIFFERATO ¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦05C-07-247 ¦KOHLER ¦BIFFERATO ¦ +--------------------------------------------------+
+--------------------------------------------------+ ¦CIVIL ACTION NUMBER¦PLAINTIFF¦PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEY¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦05C-07-257 ¦SINEX ¦HAGER ¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦05C-07-320 ¦HARMON ¦ARNDT ¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦05C-08-061 ¦LITTLE ¦ARNDT ¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦05C-08-071 ¦CLARK ¦ARNDT ¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦05C-08-219 ¦BARKER ¦ARNDT ¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦05C-09-033 ¦DAVIS ¦ARNDT ¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦05C-09-065 ¦PARRIS ¦ARNDT ¦ +-------------------+---------+--------------------¦ ¦05C-09-096 ¦PEREGRINE¦ARNDT ¦ +--------------------------------------------------+
EXHIBIT "B-1"
Jacobs & Crumplar Cases
In the Matter of Asbestos Cases,
Mulbern
Logan
Lowe
Mercer
Norrils
Kroole
Musser
Brooks
Alexander
Barker
McDowell
Warren
Hoffmm
Wells
Brasure
Suirtcchio
Jackson
McCabc
Wilson
Wingate
Spicer
Lane
Rudd
Marvel
Somers
Vinzinski
Steele
Davidson
Turner
Gams
Marvel
Bowdle
Scott
Hill
Taylor
English
Ewell
West
Reed
Barding
Spadaro
C.A. No. 78C-l0-079
82C-12-102
86C-08-070
87C-04-134
88C-02-001
88C-09-116
88C-09-IS4
88C-09-199
88C-10-225
88C-10-255
88C-11-109
89C-02-215
89C-05-97
89C-08-187
89C--10-024
89C-10-128
89C-10-129
90C-10-130
90C-05-137
90C-05-038
90C-07-101
90C-07-102
90C-07-103
90C-07-186
90C-09-067
90C-07-068
90C-07-112
90C-11-221
90C-11-222
91C-12-039
91C-12-040
91C-12-107
91C-12-108
91C-12-109
90C-12-139
91C-01-153
91C-04-046
91C-04-124
91C-04-125
91C-04-153
91C-04-301
Fleetwood
Porter
Peterson
Hastings
Butter
Hill
Kline
O'Neal
King
Dickerson
Van Vorst
Wiggins
Pizzata
Moore
Eskridge
Adkins
Raden
Jerman
Passwatare
Bishop
Merrick
McDowell
Bailey
Lavelle
Comba
Foskey
Mariner
Wilson
Tobin
Farren
Ash
Edwards
Stewart
Jones
Pusey
Shocktey
Moore
Pianka
Murphy
Hyason
George
August
Calvert
Stewart
Johoson
Lord
Holleger
Willey
Shipe
Crockett
Wheatley
Emmell
91C-04-303
91C-07-127
91C-07-251
91C-07-252
91C-0707-259
91C-07-317
91C-09-123
91C-0709-434
91C-12-033
91C-12-154
91C-l2-l56
91C-03-130
91C-03-309
91C-03-310
91C-06-097
91C-08-057
93C-11-065
91C-02-019
91C-02-239
91C-30-048
91C-07-070
91C-07-304
93C-08-2O2
91C-10-096
91C-11-010
91C-11-085
91C-11-129
91C-11-166
91C-12-274
91C-12-275
91C-12-276
91C-01-018
94C-01-037
94C-01-038
94C-01-049
94C-01-121
94C-01-122
94C-02-069
94C-02-170
94C-03-011
94C-04-114
94C-07-035
94C-07-162
94C-07-167
94C-08-001
94C-08-014
94C-10-164
94C-10-223
94C-11-110
94C-11-226
McDowell
Booz
Messick
Stoops
Robrson
De Boms
Foniker
Wallace
Wardell
Caudill
Shea
Glioma
Lingenfelter
Fuller
Lodge
Steward
Stigliano
Joswick
Russell
Cole
Ginn
Fleetwood
Griffith
Reed
Kubasko
Messick
Wheaton
Squier
Shaw
Thompson
Carter
Combs
Griffith
Willey
Golden
Baker
Ellis
Kowalewaki
Hill
Chaney
Lyons
Ruszkowski
Kitchens
Lloyd
Donofrio
Porter
Truitt
Bucokhtnd
Richardson
95C-01-202
95C-02-0I9
95C-03-123
95C-04-097
95C-05-064
95C-05-085
95C-06-174
95C-06-284
95C-06-285
95C-07-058
95C-07-167
95C-08-027
95C-08-185
95C-08-242
95C-11-009
96C-01-142
96C-01-444
96C-02-125
96C-03-106
96C-03-181
96C-03-252
96C-05-266
96C-07-169
96C-07-271
96C-10-028
96C-10-150
96C-10-192
96C-10-222
96C-11-028
96C-12-165
97C-01-244
97C-02-023
97C-02-030
97C-02-220
97C-03-414
97C-04-098
97C-05-050
97C-05-184
97C-07-223
97C-08-064
97C-08-087
97C-09-135
97C-10-112
97C-10-153
97C-10-237
97C-11-011
97C-11-127
97C-11-228
97C-12-019
97C-12-101
97C-12-183
Ferguson
Paoletti
Megill
Litchko
Snyder
Ellis
Miller
Nack
Steger
Fidyk
Hill
Farrall
Waller
Empson
Walls
Wright
Martin
Pavlostki
Peters
Johnson
Brand
Watson
Copes
Tisdel
Bradford
Meadows
Zimmerman
Haydsa
Wandell
Franzone
Best
Dimattoo
Fleetwood
Liss
Reginald
Begley
Moroski
Jackson
Banning
Doody
Friend
Poynter
Calhoun
Ewell
Davis
Brown
Edwards
Donovan
Smith
Shovlia
Annworth
Lambert
97C-12-229
98C-01-012
98C-01-021
98C-02-124
98C-03-111
98C-03-291
98C-04-123
98C-05-047
98C-05-049
98C-05-125
98C-06-043
98C-06-324
98C-06-325
98C-07-021
98C-07-056
98C-07-279
98C-08-043
98C-08-123
98C-09-007
98C-09-063
98C-10-061
98C-11-058
98C-12-184
98C-12-229
99C-01-057
99C-01- 173
99C-01-174
99C-01-200
99C-02-027
99C-02-044
99C-02-085
99C-02-174
99C-02-278
99C-03-034
99C-03-062
99C-03-113
99C-03-200
99C-03-286
99C-04-005
99C-04-225
99C-04-319
99C-05-053
99C-05-183
99C-07-070
99C-07-304
99C-08-094
99C-09-038
99C-09-074
99C-09-144
99C-09-190
99C-09-291
99C-09-079
Layton
Henry
Seruggs
Dixon
Joyner
Opalezyrski
Mutter
Steltzer
Jernigan
Cash
Miller
Parent
Rigby
Homa
Mann
Smith
Malice
Console
Tull
Walker
McClay
Meogrossi
Hammond
Stafford
Dawson
Free
Williams
Wiseman
Niblett
Kolb
Bargelski
Pankiw
Barsky
Ashcraft
Desmond
Forrester
Walden
Smith, Sandly
Smith, Claylon
McLaughlin
Arthur
Wslley
Pyle
Collins
Fassel
Henson
Harsha
Dawsoa
Wilson
Mahaley
Naylor
99C-10-207
99C-10-208
99C-11-106
99C-11-268
99C-12-120
99C-12-130
99C-12-194
99C-12-254
00C-O4-106
00C-O4-102
00C-O5-024
00C-O5-030
00C-O5-045
00C-O5-059
00C-O5-098
00C-O5-099
00C-O5-127
00C-O5-128
00C-O5-129
00C-O5-130
00C-O5-209
00C-O5-210
00C-05-211
000-05-212
00C-O5-213
00C-O5-267
00C-O5-282
00C-O6-047
00C-O6-129
00C-O6-179
00C-06-210
00C-O6-260
00C-O7-009
00C-O7-185
00C-O8-139
00C-O8-209
00C-O9-034
00C-O9-100
00C-O9-141
00C-O9-161
00C-O9-036
00C-10-480
00C-10-142
00C-10-143
00C-11-159
00C-11-261
OOC-11-262
00C-12-177
00C-11-224
01C-01-021
00C-11-176
Kosek
Cam
Carr
Currinder
Huber
Nai
Long
Carrow
Sanbon
McMillan
Shupe
Cole
Jones
Sridham
Giesecke
Wyszynski
Parehett
Johnson
Carroll
Smith
Ford
Reburn
Warner
Smith
Miller
Jackson
Diorio
Mergenthaler
Herbin
Davis
Wykpisz
Sniegowski
Bombaia
Testerman
Hudson
Donovan
Wooten
Murphy
McMullen
Williams
Fonto
Mensinger
Watts
Betts
Gamaricone
Brobst
Wooster
Insley
Clark
Hauck
Wilson
Horiel
01C-01-178
01C-02-002
01C-02-003
01C-02-042
01C-03-088
01C-05-168
01C-06-166
01C-06-039
01C-06-092
01C-07-145
01C-08-068
01C-08-124
01C-08-126
01C-08-257
01C-08-290
01C-09-123
01C-10-239
01C-11-061
01C-11-094
01C-11-099
01C-11-131
01C-11-204
01C-11-205
01C-11-238
01C-12-061
01C-12-192
01C-12-210
02C-01-056
02C-02-051
02C-02-052
02C-02-053
02C-02-068
02C-02-086
02C-02-111
02C-02-112
02C-02-208
02C-02-209
02C-03-210
02C-03-001
02C-03-002
02C-03-003
02C-03-004
02C-03-220
02C-03-262
02C-04-005
02C-04-006
02C-04-007
02C-04-030
02C-04-031
02C-04-068
02C-04-087
02C-04-109
Bell
Evans
Robinson
Irwin
Richardson
Donovan
Coulbourne
Clementoru
Gresmer
Sorensen
Waishes
Simmons
Ginocchio
Trader
Trella
Damiani
Milano
Guhl
Nessmith
Marchese
Vincent
Randolph
Clausen
Saxton
Kline
Thomas
Richardson
Owens
Buckman
Rood
Wiseman
Smith
Cupeto
Jamarowicz
Plummer
Windsor
Spencer
McLaughlin
Carter
Edwards
August
Jackson
Wiggins
Montiaer
Brooks
Igbal
Clayville
Minus
Humphrey
02C-04-129
02C-04-145
02C-04-232
02C-04-269
02C-05-022
02C-05-101
02C-05-102
02C-O5-103
02C-06-017
02C-06-124
02C-06-130
02C-07-006
02C-07-116
02C-07-251
02C-07-252
02C-07-266
02C-08-O15
02C-08-043
02C-08-218
02C-08-293
02C-10-018
02C-10-019
02C-10-065
02C-10-O92
02C-10-101
02C-10-184
02C-10-220
002C-10-053
02C-10-054
020-11-133
02C-12-081
02C-12-200
02C-12-230
02C-12-243
02C-01-115
02C-01-122
02C-02-114
02C-03-045
02C-02-189
03C-03-261
02C-04-237
02C-04-238
03C-04-339
03C-04-240
O3C-04-241
02C-04-242
03C-04-243
03C-04-244
02C-04-307
02C-05-038
02C-07-114
Forrester
Peters
Bush
Rimcisen
Armstrong
Spencer
Windsor
Lambert, Becuice
03C-09-26
03C-11-077
03C-11-070
04C-03-198
04C-03-199
04C-03-268
04C-03-269
ORDER
WHEREAS, the law offices of Jacobs and Cramplar represents the plaintiffs in the above captioned eases;
WHERGAS, certain defendants in the above cases have not folly paid the agreed upon sou foment amounts;
WHEREAS, as issue may arise where settlement monies are not forthcoming as agreed upon between the panics;
WHEREAS, according to correspondence to the Court dated January 4, 2007, some cases rioted above involve bankrupt defendants or other bankruptcy related issues which have not been resolved at this moment;
THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, this 25th day of January 2007, the above captioned cases are hereby DISMISSED; however upon motion and upon a showing of good cause, each of the eases may be reopened for fee limited purpose of pursuing applications to enforce settlement agreements or pursuing state law claims upon the conclusion of any bankruptcy related matters.
____________
Judge
EXHIBIT B
COPY
APPEARANCES:
JACOBS & CRUMPLAR
BY: THOMAS C. CRUMPLAR, ESQ.
AND
LAW OFFICES OF PETER ANGELOS
BY: RICHARD WILSON, ESQ.
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS
LORETO P. RUFO, ESQ.
DEFENSE COORDINATION COUNSEL
OTHER COUNSEL PRESENT
December 28, 2006
PRESENT:
As noted.
ALL COUNSEL: Good morning, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Good morning, everybody.
We haven't had a call of the calendar for almost two years now. And after reviewing the list that I submitted, it's clear to me that we probably should be doing this more frequently. Not that I enjoy doing it, but it looks like -- it looks like things don't get done until we push things, and that's not such a good thing.
Anyway, I had issued an order on December 20th, with a list of cases that I had indicated we intend to dismiss, unless folks appear today, "folks" meaning plaintiffs' counsel, should appear today and show cause why they should not be dismissed. And my inclination right off the bat is, as I've said repeatedly on the record during the course of this calendar year, that any case filed prior to year 2000 that's not been fully disposed of is going to be dismissed at the end of this year
And the first thing I'd like to deal with is any case filed before the year 2000. I'd like to hear why every one of those cases should not be dismissed.
That's up through pages 10 on my docket, middle of page 10, on the list that I sent out
So, who wants to talk about any pre-2000 case?
MR. WILSON: Your Honor.
THE COURT: Mr. Wilson.
MR. WILSON: Thank you.
First of all, did Your Honor get the letter I had hand-delivered?
THE COURT: Yes. Its a letter dated yesterday, which was hand-delivered some time within th last 15 minutes.
MR. WILSON: It was supposed to get to you yesterday, obviously.
Be that as it may. Your Honor, let me just kind ol cut to the chase, just present our positions to the Court so you understand what I attempted to do in the letter.
In the letter, we tried to delineate cases that we believe should technically
THE COURT: Let's talk about cases before the year 2000, because that what I'm talking about
MR. WILSON: There are - Iunderstand what you're saying, Your Honor; but If I may, basically there are cases that we are pursuing bankruptcy claims In, and there are a number of those that fall - that were obviously filed before 2000. And those are the cases that we would, if the Court would be so indulgent, would be to move to the dormant docket, if that's an option. And they are delineated in the letter, and they are, by and large, mostly
THE COURT: Does Mr. Rufo have a copy of the letter?
MR. RUFO: No, Your Honor.
(Counsel conferring.)
MR. WILSON: That was e-filed yesterday and it was supposed to be faxed to Mr. Rufo. If he didn't get it, I certainly apologize.
And, unfortunately, Your Honor, the way we broke them down doesn't meet exactly the question you put to me. But basically what we're trying to do is, there are cases that were filed before 2000, and on the first group, which are the ones we're asking to be moved to the dormant docket for the purposes of continuing to seek bankruptcy claims ends with Penn, first name Charles, 99C
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. WILSON: -- 12-003.
Our second group of cases, again, they do not necessarily fall within the - these are all, with the exception of Robert Moyer which Is a '99. 1999 filings. These cases all fall after 2000, and I would ask that they remain open for the reasons that they do, in fact, have viable defendants, that they will either be settled in the relatively near future or would be placed in a trial setting.
THE COURT: Well, I thought I had also required your firm and the other firms to provide me with a list of cases that are not on a trial docket
MR. WILSON: Your Honor, I think that would be the second group of cases that would be those cases. As far as I know, they are not on a trial setting.
THE COURT: Well, I have the list that your firm submitted to me. It's a list of 57 cases.
For example, the Moyer case, your 1999 case, it's not on that list The Harmon case, year 2000 case, that's not on the list The Tusio case, that's not on the list Warwick, that's not on the list, so on and so on.
So, my question again is: I had issued an order and asked all the plaintiffs' firms to submit to me a list of cases -- active cases which are not on a current trial schedule, cases to be put on a trial schedule, and these cases don't appear to be on that list that was submitted to me.
MR. WILSON: Those cases -I have to tell Your Honor, I do not have a direct answer for you, and I apologize for that. I was unaware of that previous list
My understanding is, if they are - that previous list that they're not on a trial setting, I did not double-check to see if
THE COURT: Who are the defendants that you are saying in this letter are viable with respect to each of these cases?
MR. WILSON: There are claims outstanding against
THE COURT: When you say "claims," you mean in this Court claims or Bankruptcy Court claims?
MR. WILSON: No. The group - the second group are cases that there are -- they're not bankruptcy claims. They are direct claims.
When we use the term "viable defendant" internally, we mean a defendant that is capable of being sued In Superior Court and we are pursuing claims against them, such as Georgia Pacific companies, and such.
THE COURT: Who are the defendants in these cases?
MR. WILSON: George Pacific are the vast majority of those cases and
THE COURT: How come they're not on a trial calendar?
MR. WILSON: Well, these cases may, in fact be on the trial calendar now that Your Honor has indicated that the firm has submitted a list
THE COURT: I just told you, they're not on the list that you submitted to me.
MR. WILSON: I'm sorry, Your Honor. I understood that was a list of cases that were not on the trial calendar.
THE COURT: Right How come they're not?
MR. WILSON: Mainly -- only because they haven't been placed, for whatever, you know, there's -- if we're talking about the cases after 2000, they just haven't been placed on the trial docket yet as the individual cases, it probably has to do mainly with the array of defendants that were available to us at the time that the cases were filed.
THE COURT: I don't understand. The case is either on the trial docket or to be put on a trial docket; and this list of cases was not submitted to me as cases that needed to be put on a trial docket And I get a letter which, as I said, was hand-delivered to me about 15 minutes ago that says we have viable defendants, and they should remain on the active docket for placement in trial settings. And I don't understand that
Now you're telling me that Georgia Pacific is the only defendant in each of these 17 cases?
MR. WILSON: No, Your Honor. I'm not saying that I'm saying that for the cases -it is my understanding, except for the cases I believe up to and including William Knox. And I apologize, Your Honor. Obviously, I've come here unprepared because I was unaware of that previous list My understanding is, I was addressing the Court's question by indicating to the Court which cases we believe should remain on an active docket, which ones can be dismissed, and which ones that we, because of pursuing bankruptcy claims, believe should be placed on the Inactive docket
If, in fact these cases are not -- and I'm talking about my second group of cases, Your Honor - if, In fact, these cases are not in a current trial setting, then these should have been added and should have been included in that other list If there's - if they're not, there's been a breakdown, and that can be - I can't fix it at this very moment for Your Honor, but I can certainly fix it before the end of the day as to those particular cases.
THE COURT: Well, Mr. Wilson, this call has been scheduled, and I'm really at a loss to understand how your firm could appear here today and not be prepared to discuss cases which we intend to dismiss with more familiarity than what I'm hearing. I don't understand that Really, I don't. I don't get it
And "by the end of the day," who's that helping? It doesn't help me.
I had a call scheduled for nine o'clock this morning. Is Miss Hadley in the office or Miss Hager in the office to help us with either of these?
MR. WILSON: No.
THE COURT: Mr. Rufo.
MR. RUFO: Your Honor, maybe I can help a little bit
On Mr. Wilson, what he refers to as his second list, that Is the cases that he says have viable defendants. Two of them are, in fact on the trial schedule.
THE COURT: Which ones?
MR. RUFO: The Kiloski case, in 11C-05-259, and the Moore case of 14C-12-210. Kiloski is scheduled for trial August 2007, and Moore is scheduled on the trial docket for May 2008.
The rest of these, I can tell Your Honor, have, in fact appeared on the trial schedule in the past All of these names, with the exception of Mr. Szczepkowski, and I probably didn't say it right
MR. WILSON: That's right
MR. RUFO: - I know these plaintiffs. I've deposed these plaintiffs. There's been IMEs of these plaintiffs. These plaintiffs have been on the trial schedule and have been removed as time goes on, because we were told there was no one left. And I know that to be the case, because a couple of these were just removed. George Town send was part of the original landowner deal. Kristine Barber was part of that Anthony Tusio, I clearly remember taking his deposition because he's a funny guy. So, I mean, they were on the schedule and I don't have the historic lists of trial schedules, but if I had access to my hard drive, I could tell you when they were set for trial and when they were removed.
So, I don't know why there's a viable defendant now, if there's a viable defendant now, because, as I said, these cases were done.
THE COURT: Well, who are the viable defendants?
MR. WILSON: Georgia Pacific, Your Honor.
Your Honor, let me change my request to the Court. Other than Moore and Kiloski, which remain on the calendar and should remain on the calendar, it would be our position that these cases, if the Court is so indulgent, would be moved to the dormant dockets, and that would be our position on those cases.
Obviously, listening to what Mr. Rufo says, I'm not here to make excuses, but t now understand, I think I understand, just based on what he said has occurred; therefore, I believe that I would ask that those cases be moved to the dormant docket notwithstanding them being filed after 2000.
THE COURT: With the exception of the Kiloski case
MR. WILSON: - Kiloski and Mr. Moore.
THE COURT: -- and the Moore case.
MR. WILSON: Yes.
THE COURT: Miss Agnew, did you see those two cases?
THE PROTHONOTARY: Yes.
THE COURT: They're already on a - and that*s the other thing that*s puzzling me, the list that I gave to folks contained only those cases that were neither on an active trial schedule or were not on the list that you supplied to me. And I dont understand how these two cases show up on your letter, because they're already on an active trial schedule. I dont get it.
MR. WILSON: I think, Your Honor, I'll tell you what I think it was. To be perfectly frank with Your Honor, I think there were too many people involved in generating the data. That's -1 mean, that's not an excuse. That's simply what I think happened, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Lefs talk a little bit, Mr. Wilson, about the dormant docket, generally.
If a defendant files a petition for bankruptcy, isnt it your firm's practice to automatically pursue bankruptcy claims against the defendant?
MR. WILSON: In general, yes, sir.
THE COURT: All right So, why do I see cases from 1990, '91, '92, '93, '96, '98? How in the world is it possible that bankruptcy claims have not been resolved in cases that are that old?
MR. WILSON: OCS is probably a fine example. I think they declared bankruptcy in 1999. Thus, a case where you have cases such as that, we've still made -which if still - are not - they have not officially published their submission process. You have ongoing trusts such as Dl that - Delaware Insulation for the record - where there is no - and this is not meant as a cut but there's no real rhyme and reason for the payouts. You never know. You submit the names as they come up. And the names you could submit -- as an example, one of the first things Barbara Gadbois did when she came to our firm in early 2000 was submit a certain list of names to Delaware Insulation. Those cases still have not been acted on.
There's other cases, such as AC&S that went bankrupt in 2004. I know that's not exactly -- doesn't address'90. But the problem is that these cases -often times the bankrupt procedure itself takes five, six years; and then, the claims process as they work through the claims. You can submit a bunch of names, and thaf s just the beginning.
THE COURT: So, are you telling me that as of right now, the Jerome Anthony case, Civil Action Number 90C-05-167, the bankruptcy claim has not been resolved with respect to him?
MR. WILSON: Every -- yes. There's still bankruptcy claims that we can pursue, that we are continuing to pursue, or maybe a better word in an older case would be attempting to collect, that is that old. Because you can see, although it is not a lot, you can see that we are - there are cases that are closed, that there are no viable defendants. There's no bankruptcy claim to pursue. Now, I know that's a small number, but you're right, Your Honor. You know, I can't speak for the other -1 can't speak for Jacobs & Crumplar.
THE COURT: I'm not asking you to.
MR. WILSON: But right, wrong, or indifferent we pursue claims for as little as, you know, $58, you know? So, yeah, they are old, and it is my understanding and my representation to the Court that, yes, we still have what we believe are viable bankruptcy claims that we are pursuing on behalf of Mr. Anthony and Mr. Powell.
THE COURT: Let me ask you another question. Assuming you pursue the claims and you collect some amount of money in the Bankruptcy Court, you don't then pursue the case again back here in Superior Court do you?
MR. WILSON: No. No. I think I understand what you're asking, Your Honor. Basically -- normally what we do, and this is probably no different from anywhere else, we have Mr. Smith come into the office. We sign him up. We file his case, and we dual-track it We pursue the bankruptcy claims. We pursue claims here. 45 And there is probably a breakdown that once we're sort of done with the active defendants, we probably are not making that next step to inform the Court that they're no longer any active defendants, and that's probably
THE COURT: Probably? I mean,! had a call of the calendar in February of '05. And I'm now seeing December of '06. And I will note that your letter Is dated December 27, 2003, and I'm not really sure how that happened.
MR. WILSON: Slow mail, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Really?
MR WILSON: I'm still trying to figure out why you just got it this morning. I don't -- that letter was dictated last week, Your Honor. It's not from 2003.
THE COURT: I don't know how anyone could type a letter dated 2003; but I guess the question is: Why are you requesting that we put cases in the dormant docket when they're not going to be coming back here for trial, ever?
MR WILSON: Because it's our position that in many of the bankruptcy trusts, or many bankruptcy claims, we need a case that is there; we need a number. We need a docket so we can represent to the bankruptcy trust, one, there's a case, here's the case number. Here's the date it's filed. If you really want to go look, you can go check the docket
THE COURT: Is that a requirement that you have a case filed?
MR WILSON: Not in every single-well, no, not in every single trust. But there are companies that do require proof that you have filed suit Also, it eliminates many of the arguments over statute-of-limitations issues and things like that It provides a, you know, representation as to the statute of limitations. And that's why we want them to remain on the dormant docket
Now, is there a way that we - again, Your Honor, I understand your concern with the call of the calendar and doing them more frequently. Is there a way that we can look at them and figure out if there's one particular trust or so and get rid of it? Yeah. And should we probably do that? Yeah. If its a concern of the Court's, absolutely. But our understanding is that we want these cases to remain as part of a docket for representations to a bankruptcy trust -I use that term In general for submitting claims or however they're submitted to the bankrupt defendants.
THE COURT: I'm not sure what your responding to at this point, Mr. Wilson.
MR. WILSON: You asked me, do we really need them open - I'm sorry, on a dormant docket
THE COURT: Okay. Why would these cases not have been requested to be put in a dormant docket when l had a call of the calendar in February of 2005?
MR. WILSON: Your Honor, I can't - I'm not going to respond to that, Your Honor, not out of disrespect, but because I don't have an answer for Your Honor, and I'm not going to pretend to have an answer for you.
THE COURT: Okay. Miss Agnew, are we okay putting these cases on the dormant docket?
THE PROTHONOTARY: Yes, Your Honor, we are.
THE COURT: With the exception of those two?
THE PROTHONOTARY: We have some questions about those. We have different case numbers. That's why.
THE COURT: You do, for Kiloski?
THE PROTHONOTARY: Uh-huh, That's why I'm checking that one right now to see if there's two cases by the same name.
THE COURT: All right And also Moore?
THE PROTHONOTARY: Moore is on the trial calendar - on the scheduling order. Moore was-I think it wasO4C-03-310.
THE COURT: '03, not '02?
THE PROTHONOTARY: Right I'm checking which number is right. That's why it wasn't picked up.
MR. RUFO: I have 03-310 In my list as well, if that explains how It got on the multiple fist.
THE PROTHONOTARY: And this one I'm checking now, they have Grant- and they have 03C-11-1 '01, is what we have here.
MR. WILSON: What's your second number?
THE PROTHONOTARY: On Grant?
MR. WILSON: On Grant, yes, ma'am.
THE PROTHONOTARY: O3C-11-101,and you have 259, are there two cases?
MR. WILSON: Yes. Because I think there might have been - one is a cancer case.
THE PROTHONOTARY: And the scheduling order, one Is not -
MR. RUFO: 03C-11-101 is the one on the scheduling order.
MR. WILSON: And that's the correct one that should stay on.
THE PROTHONOTARY: That's not the one listed in their letter.
THE COURT: All right Well, your letter lists 01 C-05. So, why shouldn't that be dismissed?
MR. WILSON: It should be dismissed, dismiss the '01
THE COURT: I'm not sure I understand why that case is pending. Why would you then file a second case while the first case is still pending? Because that's what it sounds like you did.
MR. WILSON: One or two things could have happened: One, there were additional defendants and the second step of moving to join the cases never happened. Or mere may, in fact, a motion pending to have the cases joined together. When we do that there's often -- the reason is usually we've done that probably in three cases. It's exigent circumstances in trying to get the case filed to make sure that we don't blow the statute of limitations, because there might have been, as we interviewed applicants, there might have been defendants we were unaware of at the
THE COURT: So, don't you just file the motion to amend the complaint?
MR. WILSON: (Pause.)
THE COURT: I'm just unclear
MR. WILSON: If you want an honest answer to that question, I'll give you an honest answer.
THE COURT: Let me talk for a second. I don't understand why you don't just move to amend the complaint rather than file a whole separate lawsuit
MR. WILSON: I'll give you an honest answer, Your Honor. Because we have waited five years in the past to have a motion to amend considered by this Court.
THE COURT: Not since I've been here you haven't I'm not sure what you mean by that.
MR. WILSON: I'm Just telling you we had motions to amend mat have pended five years.
THE COURT: Can you give me an example of one?
MR. WILSON: Kiloski.
THE COURT: There's a motion to amend pending at this
MR. WILSON: Well, it doesn't matter now. We're not pursuing it, because both of the defendants that we were pursuing went bankrupt we were waiting for the motion to amend to be ruled on.
THE COURT: Well, if the defendant went bankrupt, the case is stayed, isn't it? Isn't a case in this Court stayed if the defendant in mat case went bankrupt?
MR. WILSON: Yeah, but the stay -- the stay does not - Your Honor, the stay doesn't work that way. What it does is, it stays the case if the case had already been the case you're pursuing against them. If the case was never amended, then you cant stay a case that wasn't in the proper setting.
THE COURT: I feel like you and I are talking at complete different levels all morning so far, Mr. Wilson, and I'm not sure why.
Now, let me give you - -on this Kiloski case that you have listed En your letter, 01C-05-259, Miss Agnew just handed me a piece of paper that indicates that your firm filed a suggestion of bankruptcy with this Court on July 7th, 2004, that mat was the last pleading filed in that case. There's a suggestion of bankruptcy. You're telling me to keep that on an active docket when the case indicates there's a bankruptcy filed?
MR. WILSON: I'm sorry- Which case are we talking about, the '01 or the '03?
THE COURT: '01.
So, why shouldn't that case be dismissed?
MR. WILSON: I don't see any real reason why that particular Kiloski case should not be dismissed.
THE COURT: That's what's going to happen. The Kiloski case will be dismissed.
MR. WILSON: As long as the '03 remains open.
THE COURT: Is '03 on an active trial docket? I thought it was in August of '07. All right So, that's a nonissue. So, 01005-259 Is going to be dismissed.
I have very little ability to determine that what's in your letter is accurate, based upon what we talked about Mr. Wilson, it sounds like, as you said, too many people were involved in the preparation of this. And it's real unclear as to whether the information in this is accurate or not At least as to these first two categories of cases and, again, I'm still at a loss as to why cases filed in 1990 and '91, '92, and '93, et cetera, et cetera, are now In December of 2006 being asked to be placed in a dormant docket, when my understanding of our civil rule is mat Ifs your obligation to put a case in the dormant docket when a bankruptcy's fifed. It's not our obligation to pursue you to do that It's your obligation to put cases in the dormant docket when there's a bankruptcy filed. I don't understand it
And what happens? Do they Just die in the dormant docket? Do they just fade away? Are you saying that you have not yet pursued claims on any of these?
MR. WILSON: No, that's not what I'm saying.
THE COURT: All right. Well, if you need these cases in the dormant docket because you need a civil action number to put on a claim form, then why don't these cases just get dismissed once you've prepared the claim and submitted the claim?
MR. WILSON: Because
THE COURT: If that's the purpose of it to pursue a bankruptcy claim, why cant you prepare the claim, get the civil action number for the claim, and then dismiss the case here? Because you're not coming I thought you said you're not coming back here again to pursue a trial of the case.
MR. WILSON: Because there's usually not a single - in each one of these cases, there is going to be more than one bankruptcy claim. In other words, there's not necessarily going to be -- and let's just use Jerome Anthony as an example. And, please, this is not to be taken as a factual representation as to Mr. Anthony. Say, for example, we filed a case on behalf of Mr. Anthony. If we would file that case today and he was, say, an insulator, chances are you would have bankruptcy claims against AC&S, OCF, 48 Insulation, or perhaps Delaware Insulation. So, it's not like you have a case that you have, say, duPont AC&S, Diamond Shamrock, and you're going forward and all of a sudden, somewhere in the midst of pretrial litigation procedures, AC&S declares bankruptcy, and there's a single snapshot that takes place that we fill out that particular claim, submit it, and men everything's copacetic. If we - let's say we go ahead, excuse me, against - settle with Diamond Shamrock and go to trial against duPont and then the case is, you know, all said and done, we get the bankruptcy recovery, yeah, that's the case we close. But because these cases involve ongoing trusts that oftentimes require a docket number, that is why we ask that these things be put on a dormant docket Ifs not that In each case there's a singular bankruptcy that occurs or mat we are pursuing. It's because there's multi bankruptcies all with different rules. And that's the reason we want to have these remain on the dormant docket so we can give them a docket number. You know, If - and that's why
THE COURT: Have you looked at every one of these cases that are listed on these first two pages, two-and-a-half pages to determine whether you still have claims that are open or whether those claims have been resolved?
MR WILSON: My staff has indicated to me, and the person who's in charge of keeping track of this stuff, has indicated to me that these cases still have bankruptcy claims that we are, in fact, pursuing on behalf of these folks.
THE COURT: So, there's still a claim pending that has not been resolved?
MR. WILSON: Correct, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right Here's what I'm going to ask you to do with respect to every case that you're requesting to be put on the dormant docket: By noon next Thursday, 1 want a letter to me with respect to each of these cases. And in that letter, I want you to tell me when the claims were submitted on behalf of each of these plaintiffs, against which claims were they submitted, and what's the status of them.
MR. WILSON: Can I read that back to Your Honor, so I understand?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. WILSON: You want a letter by next Thursday indicating
THE COURT: Noon, next Thursday.
MR WILSON: Noon, I got that Thank you, Your Honor. When the claims were - as to each claim, when it was submitted, the status of that claim, and, obviously, the company it was submitted against.
THE COURT: Yeah.
MR. WILSON: Your Honor, I will see that that's done.
THE COURT: I'm not going to put a case in a dormant docket if claims have been resolved.
MR. WILSON: I understand, Your Honor.
THE COURT: The case is going to be dismissed. As I said, I'm repeating myself now, but I think I have to. I have no -1 can't rely on this information because it doesn't help me at all. Again, I don't understand how cases from the early '90s still, as of right now, need to be put in a dormant docket I don't understand that
All right. That also applies to that second category of cases which you had indicated were viable, but you now want to have moved to the dormant docket.
MR. WILSON: Understood.
THE COURT: Let's talk about the next category.
MR. WILSON: They're just cases that can be dismissed, Your Honor. I guess, technically, we have no objection to them being dismissed.
THE COURT: Good. All right.
MR. WILSON: Then the next two are Dawson and Dlpersio. Sorry. We withdrew as counsel.
THE COURT: When did you withdraw?
MR. WILSON: 2004, I believe, on both of those cases. They kind of blew up at the same time.
THE COURT: Have your clients been informed that you withdrew as counsel?
MR. WILSON: Yes. Yes, sir. This was not - neither one of these were pretty.
THE COURT: All right. Well, they're going to be dismissed.
Miss Agnew, did you get that one, also? Those two, the Dawson and the Dipersio?
THE PROTHONOTARY: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: All right. They'll be dismissed.
You have on this last paragraph, you have a case called Stephen Quesada?
MR. WILSON: Quesada, yes, sir.
THE COURT: Well, I'm not sure I understood what you were saying.
MR. WILSON: And 1 had a hard time figuring out how to explain this.
Here's the situation: Mr. Quesada was a fairly young guy who, actually, as he was getting ready to get out of the military is when he was diagnosed with lung cancer. Because he was not -- had not been discharged, he was still in the care of the military. Thus, all of the - all of his care was provided, in some way or another, through the military. I'm not sure if you're familiar with it, but there's, like, at least three different ways that the military can, in essence, pay for your medical care. One aspect, it happens to be a military hospital, is attempting to - has told us that if we recover anything they have - well, they don't even call it a lien, they have the claim against any recovery for their medical expenses.
Mr. Quesada does not -- does not want to pursue the claim. But also, at the same time, there is language contained in the statute that's applicable to these recoveries and the right of the Army or the Armed Forces to get reimbursed that indicates such things because you can't do anything to diminish or prejudice their rights. And I'm still trying to make sure that the Army understands that we're not pursuing this.
THE COURT: What are you not pursuing?
MR. WILSON: We're not pursuing the claim at all. If it was just
THE COURT: So, why don't you dismiss Case Number 05C-01-118?
MR. WILSON: Because until and unless I get something from the Army, I don't want them coming back and saying that our client, through us, prejudiced the Army's ability to recover their medical costs. So, that's -- I just want to complete that loop, so I don't endanger my client's economic welfare by having the case dismissed and the Army going, well, you prejudiced our ability to collect on what they called a claim.
THE COURT: Was this case put on a trial calendar at sometime in the past?
MR. WILSON: This was never on a trial calendar, as far as I know, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right So your client does not want to pursue this case?
MR. WILSON: Right
THE COURT: If that's the case, then it has to be dismissed in this court If your client doesn't want to pursue a case filed in this court it has to be dismissed, or you have to withdraw. So, this case I'm asking you to submit a dismissal.
MR. WILSON: Okay.
THE COURT: All right?
MR. WILSON: We'll do that
THE COURT: By noon, next Thursday.
MR. WILSON: We'll do that, Your Honor.
In fact based on what you're saying today, Your Honor, we can do it here, if that's what you
THE COURT: All right.
MR. WILSON: If you want to do it orally.
THE COURT: All right. Miss Agnew, that Stephen Quesada case, that will also be on the list of cases to be dismissed.
THE PROTHONOTARY: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Mr. Rufo, comments from your perspective on any of the Angelos cases that are on the list?
MR. RUFO: No, Your Honor. I'll wait to see -- I mean, as I understand it, the last few categories and Mr. Quesada, are being dismissed. The first two categories will either be dismissed or moved to the dormant docket, depending on the results of what Mr. Wilson submits.
THE COURT: Correct
MR. RUFO: That's what I'm going to report first
THE COURT: Yeah. That's correct Okay.
MR. WILSON: Thank you, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Sure.
MR. RUFO: Your Honor, I note the absence of anyone from the Jacobs & Crumplar firm.
THE COURT: 1 was going to ask if you wouldn't mind stepping out into the hallway and catling their office. We'll take a brief recess and see what -it may be that they don't want to participate, but it would be nice to know that
MR. RUFO: I have to borrow a phone because -- Mr. Wilson is giving me his.
THE COURT: Thanks, Mr. Wilson.
All right Can we talk about any other plaintiffs' firms' cases that are on the list that I submitted?
Mr. DeBruin? Oh, Miss Saville. Good morning. How are you?
MS. SAVILLE: Good morning, Your Honor. Nice to see you. Yvonne Saville.
Your Honor, we have eight cases on pages 19 and 20 of your docket. I'm happy to name them for you, if you'd like. They're under, I think, Mr. Arndt's name. They're the Billy Fake case.
THE COURT: Hang on one second, please.
MS. SAVILLE: Sure.
THE COURT: Why do I not see them on the list that I have?
MS. SAVILLE: They're pages 19 and 20. Do you want me to give you the CA number? Maybe 18 and 19 are the last two pages. Sorry.
MR. RUFO: They're all '05 civil action numbers.
THE COURT: All right.
MS. SAVILLE: We have Billy Fake, John Paris, and David Barker.
THE COURT: Hang on one second. You said Barker?
MS. SAVILLE: Uh-huh. Robert Peregrine, Richard Davis, if I didn't say that one already, George Clark, Russell Sanders, Wileen Little, I think that may be all eight
These cases were filed by Baron & Budd in 2005. They were scheduled for the August trial docket just a few months back. All of these cases have resolved. What we're in the process of doing is finalizing the settlement The reason for the delay and the reason the cases -- we hadnt asked that they be dismissed yet this is the first time these releases have been proposed to these defendants and it's taken a while to negotiate the language in those releases.
THE COURT: Okay. Status on the release.
MS. SAVILLE: I'm happy to go through, Your Honor, with each one of those cases. There are two to nine defendants with each case. And I can give the status of each defendant for each case, if you'd like.
THE COURT: Well, I guess what I would really like to know is when do you reasonably anticipate these cases being dismissed. The cases were on for August We're now five months post trial, roughly?
MS. SAVILLE: The releases, unfortunately, contain language in there that says, until the releases are signed and returned to the defendants, they get 90 to 120 days to turn over the settlement proceeds.
What I've been asked by Baron & Budd's request that the Court today allow 60 days to get any protections that we need, including any protection letters or any agreed Judgments with the Court to at least protect the plaintiffs' interests if we haven't gotten everything finalized by that period of time.
THE COURT: So, what happens on day 61?
MS. SAVILLE: Hopefully, we'll be either--we'd have our protections in place for the plaintiffs that there would be some type of protection letter with them or a judgment between the parties so that
THE COURT: So, the Court would then be able to dismiss the case?
MS. SAVILLE: Correct
THE COURT: Miss Agnew, are we able to dismiss a case for statistical purposes or for administrative purposes subject to the plaintiff bringing the case back to have to deal with post-settlement issues like enforcing of the settlement agreement?
THE PROTHONOTARY: it would have to be reopened, if that's going to happen.
MS.SAVILLE: We just want to make sure the proper protections are in place for the plaintiffs. I mean, the settlements have - I mean, the cases are done. It's just making sure it gets paid.
THE COURT: Yeah, I'm not singling your firm or the Baron & Budd firm out on my comments, but what we need to do as a litigation, as a mass-tort litigation generally, is tighten up considerably the time periods that have been at least historically used to get cases dismissed where it takes months and months.
Now, with respect to - and you're familiar with this, with respect to a settlement and any other civil case in this Court, the Prothonotary's office issues a 30-day letter that says we've been informed that the case has been dismissed, you have 30 days to get the stipulations and releases in or else we're going to dismiss the case. And I am at a loss as to why we treat asbestos any different from any other civil case. I don't know. And I'm now five months post trial and I'm asked to go two more months, and I don't understand how seven months is reasonable to get things resolved. Not your firm again, I'm talking about ail plaintiffs' firms, generally. I don't understand it And maybe somebody could talk about it but to me, that doesnt make any sense.
MS. SAVILLE: I would anticipate and I would expect that from here on out with regard to the trial dockets, at least with the Baron & Budd cases, now that we've got formal releases with the same general defendants, it's not going to take nearly as much time, but there has been some negotiating at this point
THE COURT: But is there some unique language in a Delaware asbestos case that is different from language in a case you have pending in any other state?
MS. SAVILLE: My understanding, since I wasn't involved in that particular issue, is that with the defendants in this case, they did not allow the use of the form releases that Texas counsel had been using in other states. So, there were changes that were made, I'm not in a position to address what those changes are.
THE COURT: All right
THE PROTHONOTARY: Judge, there's a Harmon case on here that is listed as yours.
THE COURT: That's listed, I'm sorry?
THE PROTHONOTARY: Harmon.
THE COURT: Oh, the Harmon case. Is that also one of the Baron & Budd cases?
MR. RUFO: No. That Harmon is, in fact, a Jacobs & Crumplar case, but Mr. Macemore, OSC-07-123, is listed.
MR. ARNDT; That case, that's a Baron & Budd case.
MS. SAVILLE: Unfortunately, that one's not on my chart But I would expect
THE COURT: That was on our August trial docket?
MR. RUFO: First set of nine, so I knew when Miss Saville said, that's the eight -- knew there was a problem and the ninth one is Mr. - he should just fall into the same category discussed earlier.
THE COURT: Miss Agnew, you see that?
THE PROTHONOTARY: The other is the Jacobs cases.
MR RUFO: Yeah, all the other Amdfs are, in fact Arndt's or Jacobs, whatever name makes you feel good.
MS. SAVILLE: I mean, if Your Honor would like, I'll tell you with regard to in general what's going on with several of the defendants, if you want that information.
THE COURT: Yeah, just a couple examples, just so I get a feel for it.
MS. SAVILLE: With regard to the Crane Company, for instance, for just about - I think it's six out of the eight defendants, or eight cases, ail the releases have been signed and returned to the defendant So, were just waiting for the funds.
THE COURT: Okay. For example, do you know when tile releases were returned to the defendants?
MS. SAVILLE: That information I don't think is on my chart I would imagine it was probably within - well, that one I do know was recovered within the last two weeks because I handled that Some of the releases have been sent to the plaintiffs for their signatures. We're just waiting for it to come back to Texas counsel.
THE COURT: See, we have to speed that process up.
MS. SAVILLE: Right Unfortunately, the releases were just reviewed and approved for most of these cases within the last month.
THE COURT: Somehow we have to tighten this post-settlement or post-trial process up a lot.
Mr. Rufo.
MR. RUFO: What might help, Your Honor, this probably isn't the best forum for it because there aren't a lot of people, but I can tell you that I was one of the individual defense counsel who had to negotiate the settlement releases with the Baron & Budd firm. And I'm sure my name is not on that chart because I'm all done. But 1 can tell you that my experience was that they, Baron & Budd, allowed defense counsel to submit whatever forms they wanted, and then reviewed it suggested some changes. I accepted those changes, and that's probably why I'm done. But the practice was, send us what you want. So, my guess is that they were dealing with 30, 40 different forms.
And that leads to where I'm going, and perhaps the Court has a lot of forms and there's a lot of -- there's a standing order with a lot of forms, a lot of rules about forms. And perhaps it's time in this litigation for a standard form of release that's accepted by the Court that's been negotiated by all the parties and says this is it That will cut major, major time from this process.
MS. SAVILLE: I will also submit Your Honor, that once we received your order on December 20, a number of protection letters were sent to local counsel so that we can make the representation, make the request to you that within 60 days, we have to have everything finalized, at least have our protections in place if the Court deems dismissal is appropriate.
MR. CRUMPLAR: Your Honor, please accept my apologies, and I thank you for having Mr. Rufo not on my calendar. I intend to find out how.
THE COURT: Are you able to discuss the call of the list of cases on the call of the calendar intelligently this morning?
MR. CRUMPLAR: If I can be given the list I think I can.
(Pause.)
THE COURT: Miss Agnew, on this list of cases that Miss Saville just mentioned, can we make sure we change the plaintiffs' attorneys name on our list to Miss Saville? That would be good. That will at least help us in that sense.
THE PROTHONOTARY: Is the name e-filed?
MS. SAVILLE: Yes. It is now.
MR. CRUMPLAR: Your Honor, one thing: I just I came in, heard some discussion about a standard form of release. I might just say that I think to have a standard form of release would be creating a nightmare. 1 mean, we have - I know Mr. Jacobs is more familiar with it We probably have 15 different forms of releases. Many defendants insist upon their own forms of releases. Some defendants insist mat they prepare the releases. I mean, for that situation, I think we have to have all of the defendants and - I mean, it is simply some of the forms of releases that we have prepared were a result of negotiations over really 20 years. I think that what is more appropriate is a simple dismissal - a notice that when a case has been settled, and the parties have informed the Court, that some kind of administrative order that 30 days or at some particular point the case is dismissed.
THE COURT: Like we do now with all other civil cases?
MR. CRUMPLAR: Yes. The case is dismissed. There's a provision and, Your Honor, I've discussed this with you in terms of coming up, and I shared it with plaintiffs' counsel and then defense counsel, that if the settlement was not paid, that the Court could revive the case and reopen the matter. I think that is the -that is what is done in federal court but it is simply - there are some defendants that the terms of the settlement paid in 30 days. Others, it's one year. I mean, it is. And, then, we have defendants even as 30 days, as Your Honor is aware, sometimes we have to get judgments. So, that's simply the payment terms. Release forms vary tremendously. And 1 know Jacobs & Crumplar have certain particular concerns. Baron & Budd may have those. So, that is something that I think simply the key point is payment
THE COURT: Well, that's something for us to consider. And I know, Mr. Crumplar, you were going to try to take a stab at some language on a letter that would -- standard letter, like the ones we currently send out
MR. CRUMPLAR: Your Honor, I will have that at least circulated by the end of today.
THE COURT: All right So, the question is: Do you get 60 days or do you not get 60 days?
MS. SAVILLE: that's the request We're hoping for the 60 days. We will take the 30, if Your Honor would prefer to do that but
THE COURT: I'm going to give you 30 days.
MS. SAVILLE: Okay. I do want to bring the Court's attention to just one particular defendant in the Sanders case, it's defendant TH Agriculture.
The plaintiff has passed away before they received the funds. So, apparently, there's a home probate court that has to approve the settlement That cant happen until the probate's complete and the daughters can't sign the releases to that particular -I mean, the settlement's in place, It's just there's a lot of other things that are going on so, I may be before the Court on that issue.
THE COURT: All right All right. So, 30 days from today would be, what January 28, 27. I'll essentially give you until, actually, Monday, January 29.
MS. SAVILLE: In the event
THE COURT: 27th and 28th is a weekend.
MS. SAVILLE: In the event that we don't have the protection in place that we need before I appear before Your Honor, I'll request additional time at that point
THE COURT: Yes, I would just say, make sure you're before me Thursday the 25th of January.
MS. SAVILLE: Okay. Very good. Thank you, Your Honor.
THE COURT: But as of the 29th, I'd like to have these cases dismissed.
MS. SAVILLE: Thank you, Your Honor. I appreciate it
THE COURT: Mr. DeBruin, how are you?
MR. DEBRUIN: Good morning, Your Honor. May it please the Court, David DeBruin from Bifferato Gentilotti Biden and Balick.
Your Honor, 1 apologize for not being here at 9 o'clock this morning, as well. Luckily, I was coming for a 10 o'clock, and it's not over, so, the ship has not sailed.
Your Honor, I was -- I had the information on the four cases that were identified as Bifferato and Gentilotti by the
THE COURT: I see six on the list
MR. RUFO: There's four more, Your Honor. Name changes.
THE COURT: All right
MR. DeBRUIN: Do you have page 18?
THE COURT: Yes. Eighteen onto 19. Mine carries over to page 19, also, with one case on the last page, the Kohler case.
MR. DeBRUIN: Yeah, there are also - the four Jacobs -- or Identified as Jacobs cases: Pate, Abou, Smith, Rozenboom and Jurgens. Those are actually our cases.
MR. CRUMPLAR: Which are those? On what page?
MR. DeBRUIN: Eighteen.
THE COURT: Miss Agnew, did you see those?
THE PROTHONOTARY: Yes.
THE COURT: Pate, Abou, Rozenboom and Jurgens are also Bifferato cases.
MR. CRUMPLAR: Your Honor, I agree those are not Jacobs & Crumplar cases.
MR. DeBruin: Right Unfortunately, I didn't get the Information on those cases. I only pulled the ones that were labeled as Bifferato cases, and I asked our co-counsel what the status was as far as tile settlement payments.
I am in accord with Miss Saville's position in that basically, Your Honor, we have one defendant in particular, and then there are a couple of others that just havent made payment. Everything else is done.
THE COURT: One defendant which crosses each of these cases?
MR. DeBRUIN: Well, there's one, Crown, Cork & Seal, in the Smith, Jones, Capriottl, and Kohler case. We're still awaiting payment Foster Wheeler in Smith and Kohler, and Goodyear Tire and Rubber in James Jones, Those are the only outstanding settlements - payments that we're waiting on.
With regard to Your Honor's earlier comment, Just a suggestion of a way that I know that they handle it in other Jurisdictions, is that they have what's called a special closed docket that once a case gets through the trial date and it's resolved in principal, those cases are put on a special close docket So, in other words, they mark - Miss Agnew Is giving me a nasty look so, maybe it's a bad idea.
THE COURT: Just what we need is one more docket.
THE PROTHONOTARY: It's not a trial pending; right?
MR. DeBRUIN: Exactly. And that way it just makes ft a little easier for the plaintiff in order to enforce the settlement to not have to reopen the case first, and then file the motion to compel.
THE COURT: If it's done in the context of the similar - one motion, as in motion to reopen, and to enforce settlement. So, if you have to file a motion, it's not a whole lot of additional work, I wouldn't think.
MR. DeBRUIN: Okay. I don't have a problem.
THE COURT: Unless I'm wrong. I mean, doesnt it - intellectually, doesn't that seem how you would do ft? Motion to reopen and to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement.
MR. CRUMPLAR: Your Honor, I think that all that is really necessary is when the case is closed, so that on the record it shows that there were these reopened matters. And, then, I think when you reopen it, you can refer to that, I mean, so I think that - I mean, 1 would also prefer a second closed docket. But I can understand the Prothonotary would just want one thing, and I have no problem as long as there is - the Court is aware we're going to have those situations where there will be some that have to be reopened.
THE COURT: But the problem we have is highlighted by what we're doing here today. We have old, old, old cases which we can't keep track of because you all are not letting us know what's happening with them until we have these conferences, or these calls. And even when we have calls like we had two years ago, cases that are back on the calendar, this same call again today which we were told two years ago they could be dismissed.
MR. CRUMPLAR: Your Honor, I guess if I can ask this question: In terms of when a case - and this Is directed to the Prothonotary - when a case is formally closed, how difficult is it if, let's just say, that we needed to reopen it in order to enforce settlement from a Court's perspective, in terms of information on a case, et cetera? The plaintiffs have that information about the name of the case. I'm just trying to find out. Logistically, from my standpoint, it would seem like we simply file a paper, noting this was the case filed, ft was closed at this point, but there were settlements not yet paid. The settlements need to be enforced, and we were simply asking the Court reopen it for the limited purposes of enforcing settlement I would think that particular filing -- now another suggestion could even be that rather than filing, let's just say, that case was 45 -- you know, 2002, 45, that's the number, rather than refilling it under that number, we could simply re-file it under "Master Asbestos," If that's -I mean, I'm asking in terms of the
THE COURT: You're saying re-file what?
MR. CRUMPLAR: Re-file - we have a case that has been closed and
THE PROTHONOTARY: Very easy to open legal - I don't know if you can do that; but computer-wise, In our office we can open it in a heartbeat.
MR. CRUMPLAR: I would simply ask that in terms of opening, I would prefer to re-file it under the same - re-file it but file the papers under the same civil action number as opposed to under Master Asbestos, but that's another place that we could do it
THE COURT: 1 would do it under the same civil action number.
MR. CRUMPLAR: I think Miss Agnew answered my question. There wouldn't be any problem at all.
THE COURT: But just let's talk again while we are on the topic, why Is it that we've been treating the asbestos cases so differently from other civil cases that are filed when we understand there's a settlement? Why have just we let these cases go on, on, on, on when, In every other civil case, a letter goes out that says you have 30 days to close the case out or we'll do it for you. And that's - I'm not sure. We have corporate defendants in other civil cases just tike we have in these cases. Why have we allowed the asbestos docket to just linger post settlement?
MR. CRUMPLAR: Your Honor, one thing I do know, because I do regular civil cases that the delay in settlement is orders of magnitude. I just settled a case, and, you know, 1 was almost kind of, you know, when can we get the money, thinking the absolutely soonest would be 30 days, they said we'll have it in a week. I mean, that is just the way in terms of the defendant 1 much prefer in terms of settlements that we get them in a week rather than
THE COURT: But you get them within a week after the executed releases are submitted to the defendants?
MR. CRUMPLAR: No. No. No.
THE COURT: Because we have delays on both sides?
MR. CRUMPLAR: Absolutely.
THE COURT: Just a second. We have delays from the plaintiffs in getting their clients to execute release documents, and we then have delays from the defendants after receipt of tile release documents and preparing the checks and sending them?
MR CRUMPLAR: Your Honor, 1 absolutely agree; but what 1 can say? In terms of most of my civil personal-injury cases, when we settle, they say we'll have the check to you. I mean, I agree on a settlement on a Monday, they say we'll have the check to you In 10 days. And they say we don't want -- we'll hold the check until you send us the release. But it's not a question of we don't get the check pending the release. The difference, in terms of asbestos, is some defendants will do it that way, but most defendants will say we want to have the release.
There is - Your Honor's quite correct in terms of the delay, in terms of the release getting out to then, but even when the release gets out and even if we had the release within, you know, two days of the settlement, I can say because of the nature of the defendants and the practice, it would be far beyond that I think the best way - and that has been what has caused this lingering and the other thing that the thing causes, quite frankly, is In the average civil suit you have one or two defendants. And in an asbestos case, where you're having 20, 40 defendants, that just adds In terms of the delay.
I think, from the standpoint of if the Court wishes to clean up the docket and not have this lingering kind of matter, to me, I think the answer is simply that after the plaintiffs have - and I think ifs simply a question of writing a letter to the Court saying we have now settled with all the defendants. At that point I can even see that the Court or the plaintiffs could even submit to the Court an order closing the matter that simply notes that there are settlements unpaid and a possibility of having to revive the case. But from a plaintiffs' standpoint as long as we have that protection in terms of reviving the case, I do not see a problem with actually having the case closed within, administratively, within 30 days or a very short time of when the plaintiffs send that letter to Your Honor stating that we have settled with the fast defendant
THE COURT: I don't either.
MR. CRUMPLAR: And I might point out, at one point, we were concerned, and I think one of the reasons, to answer your question as to why it's different in asbestos, that when a number of companies went into bankruptcy, and I remember bankruptcies first started in 1978, early on after I got - there was the expectation that a number of these companies would actually come back into the litigation. And at first, some of them actually did. So, you didn't want to close any file because after bankruptcy, they could come back, and the whole kind of question of the thing being stayed. So, I think the bankruptcy aspect really kind of trained us to keep the fifes open as a practical matter I think now In the bankruptcy - these companies are not coming back. There will be a distribution or, if there's some kind of dispute, there's an alternative dispute mechanism. So, the fact of having a trial against a bankrupt defendant is, I think, almost totally unlikely. And if that ever comes back, I think you don't create - you don't keep open a thousand cases just for the chance that there may be one case one time. So, I think that's why we've had this past program.
THE COURT: Well, that's why we have the dormant docket, also. They get put in the dormant docket and there are timeframes built in that automatically.
MS. SAVILLE: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Have you listened to - have you heard what we were talking about with respect to trying to perhaps administratively close a case subject to reopening it?
Any comments about that?
MS. SAVILLE: I don't have anything further to add, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Does it make sense; is there some merit to considering that from your perspective?
MS. SAVILLE: The only concern I have is in the event that the case is closed, and they have to reopen the case, I don't know what kind of problems Lexis Nexis will create for us if the case has been closed. Try to file something with a case that has been dismissed, whether or not we're going to be able to e-file it, Lexis Nexis
THE COURT: That wouldn't be a problem.
THE PROTHONOTARY: Lexis Nexis does not let us close cases out.
THE COURT: They're there forever.
We just want things resolved for statistical purposes, for docket purposes, and for administrative purposes, so we're able to accurately gauge what's going on, cases coming in versus cases closed. And we have to be able to know that and the incredibly long delays we're having make that almost impossible for us to gauge our dockets statistically.
MS- SAVILLE: Assuming that there's no problem with accepting a pleading.
THE COURT: Well, yeah, It would be a motion to reopen the case for the limited purposes of enforcing a settlement agreement.
MS. SAVILLE: 1 don't have any problem with that
THE COURT: I don't either.
Mr. Rufo, you're standing. Do you see any issue or problem with that?
MR, RUFO: No. I see a solution. 1 think perhaps, every 30 days or so, Your Honor should send a note down to Miss Agnew that says, close the following cases using the standard language. And perhaps the standard language should be something like, dismissed, closed, or whatever the magic words are, subject to reopen to enforce any settlements or settlement agreements.
THE COURT: What I'm trying to get at, and thank you for that. And what I'm hying to get at is heating the asbestos docket no different than any other civil case, so the folks who work in the Prothonotary's office don't have to do things differently. And what I mean is, we send - we automatically send out letters after we're informed that cases are settled or resolved as a result of trial. I'd like to be able to have that same situation, so the folks in the Prothonotary's office send out a letter that says within x number of days the case will be dismissed.
THE PROTHONOTARY: Use the language he was speaking of, create a failure letter.
THE COURT: Yeah. And Mr. Crumplar and I talked about this a couple weeks ago, to try to develop some - it's not magical. It's just
MR. RUFO: One sentence. But, if Miss Agnew's office sends that letter out, I'm going to guess that she's going to get responses from half the people who get the letters saying they'll leave it open, every single time.
THE COURT: Well, we're not going to leave it open. That's the point
MR. RUFO: Well, then, that leads me to why send a letter, why not just dismiss it with this magic language and everybody knows that's going to happen in 30 days. Mr. Crumplar, he always has a problem. And when he has a problem, then he can file a motion because, otherwise, as soon as I get that letter, or as soon as he gets that letter, and he's still waiting for some checks, there's going to be a response saying, I'm waiting for some money or I'm waiting for
THE COURT: The letter would - and maybe I'm not understanding. The letter would be just like every other case that says we understand the case is settled, you have 30 days to dismiss the case or we will do it
MR. RUFO: I think the letter says -I think it says more than that
THE PROTHONOTARY: They can respond to the letter.
MR. RUFO: 1 think you can respond with a reason why you shouldn't do it What I'm suggesting is you're going to get a response every time.
THE COURT; But I don't want a response.
MR. RUFO: I know. I'm trying to avoid that, too.
MR. CRUMPLAR: And, Your Honor, Mr. Rufo, I think, got it wrong in terms of how I would respond. It's simply a question of having a customized letter, which is, 1 think, what Your Honor just said, that we simply and I do think a letter is appropriate just to cover those - just due process, which we'll simply say we understand the case is settled, It will be dismissed in 30 days, and we just have the magic language that if there is - after it is dismissed, there are still unpaid settlements, the Court will entertain to understand tile case can be revived. As long as there is that statement then I will not send a letter. I can't speak for other people, but 1 think that takes care of it The purpose of that letter is to simply - because there could be a case that is not settled that should go ahead, and I think you need that extra -I mean, even in those cases - you still could revive it with mistake; but, you know, I do think as long as we're trying to have standard procedure, I'm not asking the Prothonotary to do something that they don't normally do. But If the normal kind of course is the Court understands the case is settled because plaintiffs have said that, and if the
THE COURT: Or I learn it and tell the Prothonotary.
MR. CRUMPLAR: Yes. Right
THE COURT: 1 mean, I don't need to wait for a letter from you to
MR. CRUMPLAR: Absolutely. And that could even be again that - because I can see many times the plaintiffs might not do that, you want to clear the docket let's double-check, the Prothonotary says that, we'll then look to make certain, yes, in fact, this case is settled. As long as we do not have to automatically respond - and that's what Mr. Rufo's referring to.
THE COURT: Yeah.
MR. CRUMPLAR: If we don't have that magic language in there, you're going to get a response; but as long as we have that, I think that's fine. I think that is a solution. It's simply the language, and 1 will -I know I discussed this. I wanted this form to really see that everyone was comfortable. I will try to propose that language, submit It to the plaintiffs, Mr. Rufo, and I would think within 30 days we - you could have a standard form.
THE COURT: Yeah. I'll hold you to ft
Mr. Wilson, Mr. DeBruIn, does that make sense; any problem?
MR. CRUMPLAR: I have not had a chance to confer with the plaintiffs' counsel on this.
MR. DeBRUIN: Right That's one thing I was going to say, is that I think we are hopefully going to have another plaintiffs* meeting in the next two weeks. That is one thing mat we can talk about
Also, I'm not as vehemently opposed, as f think Mr. Crumplar is, to the standard form release. That's not a bad idea. I realize all the defendants have their own thing and this and that but, guess what? If that's what you get in Delaware, that's what you get.
MR. CRUMPLAR: Let me just say, please, that It is a nightmare in terms of
THE COURT: But see, from the Court's perspective, we could give a dam about the language of your release. What we care about Is closing cases for statistical purposes, resolution of cases. That's all we care about. You guys can have the most intricate detailed language you want in a release or you could have the simplest of all releases, we dont have a stake in that
MR. CRUMPLAR: And that's why I think we are making a major mistake going to the
THE COURT: I don't know if it's a major mistake. Look, there's some merit to having a rule of order that says in Delaware, here's the release. Who cares. This is the release, if you don't like it, then deal with it in some other way.
MR. CRUMPLAR: But Your Honor, in terms of -I don't think that there's any need to try to - even though there's value in terms of simplicity to do that, If it does not resolve the problem with regard to the Court The problem with regard to the Court is getting these cases quickly dismissed. And that can be done without having to change the release, because let me just say, the release reflects the settlement and we do not settle our cases all the same way. I mean, there are - and to have the standard form release, I can guarantee you, then we have motions that we want to bury and I think that creates a bigger problem.
THE COURT: Well, you understand our concern. Mr. Wilson?
MR. WILSON: Your Honor, just real quick. I agree with Mr. Crumplar that a standard form is not going to work. It just can't Baron & Budd and Simmons Cooper do only mesothelioma cases. There's a certain amount of constantness to those, ft doesn't apply to asbestos-related lung disease, nonmalignant cases. There's different forms of release that transcend even defendants' language that release language itself, but that's neither here or there.
I think Mr. Crumplar is correct and is on the right line that we can address the Court's issues, i.e., not having a docket that appears to be 10,000 cases when it's really maybe 500. I think that can be addressed way short of a standardized release.
And just --I dont want to repeat everything Mr. Crumplar says. He's absolutely right what has happened over the years, the biggest difference is that when you settle your automobile accident case, you would not stand for somebody telling you we'll get you the money in 90 days because there's no excuse for it The excuse on the defendant's side, and I use "excuse" in a polite sense, is that ifs not just you guys, it's you here, and this state, this state, mis state, and they seem to want to demand an orderly payment that just simply doesn't exist in other litigation. But, again, with the protection of and indicating that the case is closed administratively with a relatively straightforward process to reopen it to enforce a settlement I think that pretty much addresses the plaintiffs' concerns as well as trying to get these dockets to at least reflect what's really going on as opposed to reflecting a burden that's not really there for the Court
THE COURT: Yeah. We care about dispositions, and that's the main tiling.
MR. WILSON: Thank you.
THE COURT: Mr. DeBruin, any other comments?
MR. DeBRUIN: One last comment I think part of the delay is, as Mr. Wilson just mentioned, the fact that the defendants have gotten used to kind of a slow pay and probably, in part, because they have such a powerful advocate, Mr. Rufo. They have been able to reach agreements that otherwise just don't exist in regular litigation.
THE COURT: Well, for the Bifferato, Simmons Coopers cases, Mr. DeBruin, what I'm going do is allow you 30 days, which would be January 29, to dismiss those cases or they will be dismissed by the Court Can you follow that? So, you have until January 29 to get those cases mat are listed here dismissed or we will do that
My civil motion calendar before that would be Thursday, the 25th. So, I would recommend that you let me know by that afternoon what's going to be happening to those cases.
MR. DeBRUIN: that's fine, Your Honor. If I could, the dismissal, can we try and incorporate mat language that
THE COURT: Yeah. I'm hopeful - and that's the other thing I was going to say. I understand that there is going to be a scheduled plaintiffs' group meeting in early January. I would ask that to the extent that you have any agenda Hems, mat that be not just an agenda item, but you resolve the issue on the content of the letter at that meeting so we will --- "we", meaning the Court, can then start issuing those letters immediately thereafter.
MR. CRUMPLAR: And I will endeavor to take the lead on that and advise the Court.
THE COURT: Yeah. Whatever. I mean, it's a group thing, whoever does it
MR. CRUMPLAR: Administratively, that's all. Okay.
THE COURT: Yeah. Okay. Does that sound acceptable to the four plaintiffs' firms who are here today?
MR. WILSON: Yes.
MS. SAVILLE: Yes. Your Honor
MR. DeBRUIN: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right Good. Great At least we made a little progress on that issue.
AH right So, that takes care of the Peter Angelos cases, the Bifferato, Simmons Cooper's cases. Let's talk about some others.
Anybody else?
MR. RUFO: Just Mr. Crumplar is left Your Honor.
MR. CRUMPLAR: Your Honor, I was aware when the letter came in, went to my partner to ask if he was taking care of ft and he told me he was.
THE COURT: Great Well then, it's taken care of.
MR. CRUMPLAR: But that's as much, Your Honor, as I know in terms of that I want to make it clear on the record I did not have that on my calendar, even this particular meeting. Just in looking over the listing that I just saw, I see only three cases that I mean, all -1 see the Opalczyrski case, which is a '99 case that might have been an earlier version of the Opalczyrski matter that we dismissed. I'd have to call my office about that
There's the Hudson
THE COURT: That case is on in January.
MR. CRUMPLAR: Yes, but I think that -I think the January case is a later case.
THE COURT: I asked that of Mr. Wilson before you got here. Why in the world do you file a case in 1998 on behalf of a plaintiff and then file a separate case on behalf of that same plaintiff in 2002?
MR. CRUMPLAR: I can give you a very easy answer to it Your Honor, and I believe this is the case: I think that with Mr. Opalczyrski, we filed an action for him based on a nonmalignant matter, and with many of the plaintiffs we have two separate cases, i mean, you have asbestosis; ten years ago, you file that case, you resolve it and that did it What happens
THE COURT: While the case is pending, why in the world do you file a separate lawsuit before the prior case is resolved?
MR CRUMPLAR: Your Honor, the answer is the Opalczyrski case, I believe we dismissed it My memory with that case is that I believe we found out that it was not an accurate diagnosis.
THE COURT: Okay, so, you agree, then, that it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to have two cases pending with the same plaintiff?
MR. CRUMPLAR: Absolutely. Absolutely. And I think that was a case that we attempted to dismiss, and I simply would have to call to verify that
THE COURT: If you remember, Mr. Crumplar, again, the list mat I generated or that we generated, because Miss Agnew was responsible for rt, the list was generated by looking at all cases that are currently scheduled for a trial, and all cases that the plaintiffs' firms submitted to me, which are pending, but not yet put on a trial calendar. So, we looked at those two lists of cases on a calendar, cases to be put on a calendar with our docket and this came up with everything that's not on currently and not to be scheduled.
So, that's why I said we intend to dismiss all these cases today, unless you tell us why we shouldn't And I think the list should be accurate. In fact you'll see the list mat I have right here, all these - see the orange? You cant see specifically the cases, all those cases that are in orange, those were cases mat we were told in our February of 2005 calf of the calendar were to be dismissed but had not yet been dismissed. So, we really, really mean it now
MR. CRUMPLAR: And I think, Your Honor, I would just ask if I could have one minute to step outside to simply call
THE COURT: Can we keep the doors open so we can hear the conversation?
MR. CRUMPLAR: I'll be happy to speak right now on the speakerphone, Your Honor, I just know the Opalczyrski case, the Hudson case, and the Klein case. I just want to make certain it's a different Hudson.
THE COURT: You want to just step out-why don't you step out into the hallway, give him a call.
All right Oh, then before we do that, Mr. Crumplar, I want to let you know that my afternoon calendar, because there are no contested matters on, I'm not going to go forward with the 2:30 calendar today. It's going to be off. So, I would - all the plaintiffs' firms are here, I would then ask Mr. Rufo to then circulate that to the defense group when he gets back to his office.
The other couple matters, the Hudson case, because of the letter I received from Mr. Goldman, I really can't put the Hudson case on for January if we have a Section 343 issue. So, the Hudson case is going to be moved off of January.
MR. CRUMPLAR: Your Honor, there is no 343 issue in the Hudson case.
THE COURT: This letter indicates that there is.
MR. CRUMPLAR: Your Honor, with all due respect
THE COURT: Here's what we're going to do. You call Mr. Jacobs, then we'll talk about it
MR. CRUMPLAR: Okay. Fine. I appreciate it
(Recess held.)
THE COURT: Okay. I think we're going to go back on the record.
Before I jump back into ihe call issues, what I'd like to have, I'd like to work on with Mr. Rufo and Mr. Crumplar are making sure by the end of the today we finalize dates for your July cases, that there's no misunderstanding as to those dates that you've requested be modified. Okay. So, can we work on that this afternoon?
Also, with respect to those Cahee cases that we talked about on Thursday, what I'd like to do is have the two of you, and to the extent any other defendants need to be involved, come up with a plan by die end of the day Tuesday so that we can talk about those Cahee cases next Thursday.
And you'll remember my comments last week with respect to these motions, current pending motions to expedite summary judgment I'm not going to be entertaining or having the Court entertain those types of motions if, after discovery, those identical motions are going to be brought back again.
So, I'd like for you to come up with a plan that we can talk about Thursday at 2:30, to try to expedite those matters.
The one case that Mr. Beste had talked about made sense. It looked like a very isolated issue that he said you go forward with. I did see a couple other defendants joined in on that application this week. So, if we could talk about how to handle those. There is some efficiency in it. If we could resolve some of those cases earlier on some legal issues, then it makes sense to do that
MR. CRUMPLAR: Thafs fine, Your Honor. Just one question with regard to that one case in the Cahee matter.
Your Honor had kind of said well, why couldnt I file a response in two weeks. Well, two weeks would be next Thursday - yes, because it was a week ago Thursday, you said that, and 1 said I would check. I didn't know I simply had to find out the legal Issue. I did check on Friday. They are a little more complex because of the - actually, IVe been informed mat in Alabama and Mississippi, you can file a case without a personal representative being appointed.
THE COURT: Yeah, but you cant in Delaware.
MR. CRUMPLAR: Well, there is a question as to the validity of that I mean, that is something that
I mink will take a long - and especially during the fact of the holidays, mat I can not file a - it would be very difficult for me to file a response next Thursday.
THE COURT: All right So, I'll give you two weeks from today.
MR. CRUMPLAR: No.
THE COURT: What do you mean "no"?
MR. CRUMPLAR: I did not say no.
MR. RUFO: He said "No."
MR. CRUMPLAR: Fine, Your Honor. Thank you
THE COURT: Let the record note there's a lot of laughter in the courtroom.
Two weeks from today.
MR. CRUMPLAR: Okay. Thank you.
THE COURT: Maybe Mr. Jacobs can jump on that like he did this call of the calendar.
MR. CRUMPLAR: Mr. Jacobs is going to Florida.
THE COURT: I'm not surprised. Is he taking the winter off again?
MR CRUMPLAR: Yes, he is. Thafs again-THE COURT: Thafs a positive from some of
the defense perspective, not necessarily, mine.
MR. CRUMPLAR: And not mine, Your Honor, either, but I will have that on Tuesday.
THE COURT: Will he be back for the July calendar?
MR. CRUMPLAR: He will be, Your Honor. And he will be here for ADR, too, Your Honor.
THE COURT: I'm looking forward to that MR. CRUMPLAR: He's coming back for specia events.
THE COURT: Good. All right. Now let's talk about the Jacobs & Crumplar cases.
Did you want to talk about something else,
Mr- Rufo?
MR RUFO: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right On the call of the calendar, with respect to the Jacobs & Crumplar cases, Cm going to do (ike I did with Mr. Wilson. I'm going to note that the - all of the cases listed on the call will be dismissed, and I'll give Mr. Crumplar until noon on Thursday to send to me a letter indicating for what reason - a detailed letter, with respect to any case that he's saying should not be dismissed. "Detailed" meaning dates, times, and when events took place. Because I don't want a beg letter that just says we want the following cases to be put on the dormant docket I need to know why. If you want a case in the dormant docket because a the bankruptcy, I'm asking you to do what I did with Mr. Wilson. Include in that letter when a claim was submitted to the bankrupt defendant or the trust, which claims or what claims were submitted on behalf of that client to which trusts, and what is the status of the claim that was submitted to that trust because I don't like putting in a dormant docket at the end of 2006 or early 2007 a case where claims were submitted three, four, five, or six years ago. It Just doesn't make sense to me. So, I need to know what actions you've undertaken with respect to those bankruptcy claims because I want to have some options.
MR. CRUMPLAR: Your Honor, just so that I can understand because I wasn't here and, again, my apologies. I can understand that we are to identify which cases we feel should not be outright dismissed.
THE COURT: Yeah.
MR. CRUMPLAR: That Your Honor is saying that these cases are not moved to a dormant docket just simply dismissed, that if we wish something to be moved to a dormant docket, we would have to advise Your Honor, in detail as to the status of die bankruptcy claims.
THE COURT: Yeah. And I'm going to tell you and maybe you can talk to Miss Agnew and maybe she can provide you with a color-coded list On this call, every single one of the cases that is in orange is a case that we talked about with your firm in February of 2005. And at that point you told us that these cases would be dismissed and they have not been. So, I really, really don't want to see any of those cases in a letter next Thursday that says they should not be dismissed. That would be bad if that happens.
MR. CRUMPLAR: I would like to then have that color copy to make certain
THE COURT: Is that something you can provide to Mr. Crumplar, Miss Agnew?
MR. CRUMPLAR: Yes. Not this very minute, though.
THE COURT: No, I know. I mean, before he leaves the courthouse, maybe you could walk down to your office with him or something?
THE PROTHONOTARY: Yes.
THE COURT: I don't want to put you on the spot, but those ones would be really bad to see on a list.
MR. CRUMPLAR: Those are the ones, the orange ones, I think you said.
THE COURT: You see the list in orange here I'm holding up? Those, as I said, were the ones. And just, again, remember this list was generated out of -as a result of cases that you submitted to us which were to be added to a trial calendar which are active, and that's the other reason why I'm reluctant and will be very disappointed if I see a long list of cases that should remain active, because you've already told us two weeks ago what cases need to be put on a trial calendar. And we're already aware of cases that are on the existing trial calendar. So, it would be really not so good if we get a long list of cases that now should be back on a trial calendar. But that's just my cautionary words.
So, by noon next Thursday i want that MR. CRUMPLAR: I understand, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Can Mr. Jacobs do that from Florida?
MR. CRUMPLAR: Mr. Jacobs will be here next
THE COURT: Okay. Does he have e-mail access in Florida?
MR. CRUMPLAR: He does, Your Honor.
THE COURT: That's good news.
There are a couple cases that have Mr. Forcina's name next to them.
THE PR0TH0NOTARY: Two of them.
THE COURT: Yeah. Two cases that have Anthony Forcina's name on them, and I know at least several years ago, Mr. Crumplar, your firm went to trial on some cases with him.
THE PROTHONOTARY: Page ten.
MR. CRUMPLAR: Your Honor, I see those. I happen to know coincidentally, the Homa case, the Console case is a familiar name to me. I believe that all of the Forcina cases that we took over, you know, there could be an exception, but basically when he stopped the practice, he sent us a number of cases,
THE COURT: Yeah.
MR. CRUMPLAR: And, so, I will take a look at that 1 think those are probably Jacobs & Crumplar cases, but 1 simply don't know.
THE COURT: All right Thank you.
MR RUFO: I think Homa on that list is Choma, C-h-o-m-a.
THE COURT: Is that on a trial calendar?
MR RUFO: Yeah. I think we just took it off the trial calendar. I think it's to be closed.
MR CRUMPLAR: Choma, if I am aware of Choma being an older case, that's correct
MR. RUFO: It was an open case; it was on the trial calendar, It's appropriately on this list
THE COURT: Good. All right And Console, does that sound familiar?
MR RUFO: I agree with Mr. Crumplar, it sounds familiar and it sounds familiar as associated with him.
THE COURT: We used to have a trial group called the Console Trial Group, I thought
MR. CRUMPLAR: Sounds familiar.
THE COURT: Other issues that we can talk about because it appears that we have gone through this list as best we can at this point
MR CRUMPLAR: I think that the -I think this takes care of this list, Your Honor. There was, right before 1 took a break a question on the Hudson case and
THE COURT: Well, well deal with that on Tuesday or by the end of the day Tuesday.
MR. RUFO: Your Honor, just to clear up on the Cahee matter Mr. Crumplar's going to respond two weeks from today in the Hayes case.
THE COURT: In the Hayes case.
MR. RUFO: I will, today or tomorrow, and it's not going to change what Mr. Crumplar does. I filed an adoption of Mr. Beste's motion to expedite this thing. I have to adopt the underlying motion, so that he only has to answer it one time and ft will be for everyone.
THE COURT: Yeah. Make sense?
MR CRUMPLAR: Yes.
MR. RUFO: And I will advise defense counsel that this afternoon's docket therefore, is not going to be this afternoon.
THE COURT: Thank you, sir.
Mr. Kaplan.
MR KAPLAN: Belated note, just January trials, just a matter of personal scheduling, is jury selection still beginning January 3rd?
THE COURT: Yes, Wednesday, January 3 is jury selection.
MR KAPLAN: Okay.
THE COURT: And I wont need counsel here until 11 o'clock.
MR. KAPLAN: Okay.
THE COURT: Okay. All right Thanks for your time. Appreciate it.
Have a good New Year, everybody.
(Proceedings adjourned.)