Case ID: f-appx_133/html/0832-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "STAPLETON, Circuit Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

In re: DIET DRUGS (PHENTERMINE/FENFLURAMINE/DEXFENFLURAMINE) PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION Deborah Badarzynski Appellant.
    No. 04-3928.
    United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
    Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) June 6, 2005.
    Decided June 8, 2005.
    Michael D. Goldstein, Goldstein & Gold-stein, Cleveland, OH, for Appellant.
    Fred S. Longer, Arnold Levin, Michael D. Fishbein, Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman, William G. Frey, Andrew A. Chirls, Christopher L. Soriano, Wolf, Block, Schorr & Solis, Philadelphia, PA, Robert D. Rosenbaum, Arnold & Porter, Washington, DC, for Appellees.
    Before AMBRO, STAPLETON and ALARCON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       Honorable Arthur L. Alarcon, Ünited States Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit, sitting by designation.
    
   OPINION OF THE COURT

STAPLETON, Circuit Judge.

In order to register for benefits under the Settlement Agreement in the Diet Drug Class Actions, appellant Deborah Badarzynski was required to return her Blue Form to the AHP Settlement Trust (“Trust”) by May 3, 2003. She did not do this until November 21, 2003. Applying the “excusable neglect” standard set forth in Pioneer Inv. Serv. Co. v. Brunswick Assoc. Ltd., 507 U.S. 380, 113 S.Ct. 1489, 123 L.Ed.2d 74 (1993), the District Court concluded that Badarzynski’s untimely filing was not attributable to such neglect. We find the analysis set forth in its opinion persuasive and cannot say that the District Court abused its discretion.

The judgment of the District Court will be affirmed. 
      
      . Ms. Badarzynski had actual notice of the deadline for registration and learned ten days before the deadline that her attorney may have failed to effectuate her registration as she intended. She nevertheless waited over six months to advise the Trust of her desire to register. Thus, this case is far different from In re Orthopedic Bone Screw Prods. Liab. Litig., 246 F.3d 315 (3d Cir.2001).