Opinion
Case No.: 1:04-cv-06343-JRG-DLB Case No.: 1:10-cv-02404-JRG-DLB Case No.: 1:10-cv-02405-JRG-DLB Case No.: 1:10-cv-02394-JRG-DLB Case No.: 1:10-cv-02395-JRG-DLB Case No.: 1:10-cv-02384-JRG-DLB Case No.: 1:10-cv-02382-JRG-DLB Case No.: 1:04-cv-06346-JRG-DLB Case No.: 1:10-cv-02392-JRG-DLB Case No.: 1:10-cv-02397-JRG-DLB Case No.: 1:10-cv-00287-JRG-DLB Case No.: 1:10-cv-00289-JRG-DLB Case No.: 1:10-cv-00288-JRG-DLB Case No.: 1:10-cv-00282-JRG-DLB
07-05-2012
NANCY WADDELL, Plaintiff, v. WYETH LLC, et al. Defendants. KAY UHALT and STEPHEN UHALT, Plaintiffs, v. WYETH LLC, et al. Defendants. DOROTHY SETSER and HOWARD SETSER, Plaintiffs, v. WYETH LLC, et al. Defendants CAROL HILL and LEONARD HILL Plaintiffs, v. WYETH LLC. et al Defendants. MARIANNE PHILLIPS and WILLIAM PHILLIPS, Plaintiffs, v. WYETH LLC, et al. Defendants. GLORIETTE MCPHERSON, Plaintiff, v. WYETH LLC, et al. Defendants. BETTY CRAVEN and GEORGE CRAVEN, Plaintiffs, v. WYETH LLC, et al. Defendants. SHIRLEY BOWLES and GERALD BOWLES, Plaintiffs, v. WYETH LLC, et al. Defendants. DONNA HAMES and MICHAEL HAMES Plaintiffs, v. WYETH LLC, et al. Defendants. VICTORIA POOLE and DELBERT POOLE Plaintiffs, v. WYETH LLC, et al. Defendants. LOIS ZANYK Plaintiff, v. PFIZER INC., et al. Defendants. CARLEEN WEST Plaintiff, v. PFIZER INC., et al. Defendants. PAMELA TURNER Plaintiff, v. PFIZER INC., et al. Defendants. LUCILLE MACIAS Plaintiff, v. PFIZER INC., et al. Defendants.
ORDER RELATING TO THE
PARTIES' JOINT STATUS REPORT
I have considered the Joint Status Report [ECF 55] filed by the parties in these actions. The parties state that they need 30 to 60 days to finalize the resolution of these cases and, therefore, propose a deadline of 60 days in which to file a joint motion to dismiss the above cases, or, in the alternative, file a joint status report informing the court as to the status of resolution of the cases. I find the parties' proposal unacceptable. As I indicated at a status conference on December 9, 2011, "these cases are seven years old .... There have been orders entered ... and they've all been extended two or three times." [1:04-cv-06343-JRG-DLB, ECF 36, pp. 5, 8.] I stated very clearly that "this process stops today. We're going to set a firm scheduling order and we're going to take these cases to trial." Id. at 8. On January 20, 2012, I entered a scheduling order in these cases, setting trials to begin on October 22, 2012. [1:04-cv-06343-JRG-DLB, ECF 46.]
In April of 2012, the parties advised me the cases had settled and that they requested vacation of the scheduling order and 60 days to set a status conference. By order entered April 24, 2012, I vacated all trial and pre-trial deadlines in the above actions and ordered the parties to file a joint status report within 60 days informing me as to the resolution of these cases, or in the alternative, to file a joint motion to dismiss. [ECF 54.] The parties now seek an additional 60 days within which to file a joint motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, file a joint status report informing me as to the status of resolution.
In light of the number of delays in these cases preceding settlement, the representation by the parties in April, 2012, that these matters have settled, and the fact that the parties have already requested one extension, which I granted, I am not willing to extend this matter out further. It is ORDERED that the parties shall file a joint motion to dismiss within 30 days of entry of this order. If the parties do not file a joint motion to dismiss within 30 days, the court will enter a new scheduling order in this matter with court chosen deadlines, including a trial date in the coming months.
____________________________
Joseph R. Goodwin, Chief Judge