Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-md-02096/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-md-02096-43/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Fraud

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

In Re Zicam Cold Remedy Marketing,

Sales Practices, and Products Liability

Litigation. 

_________________________________

This document relates to:

Carla Henry v. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc.,

et al.

No. CV-10-2082-PHX-FJM.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 09-md-2096-PHX-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it a renewed motion from lawyers Charles S. Zimmerman,

Timothy J. Becker, and Stacy K. Hauer to withdraw as counsel for plaintiff Carla Henry (doc.

1406). Plaintiff has not responded, and no trial date has been set. 

We denied counsel’s first motion to withdraw for failure to explain the nature of their

“fundamental disagreement” with plaintiff, and because counsel did not indicate whether

they served their client with the motion. Order of March 28, 2011 (doc. 1397). 

Counsel explain that the fundamental disagreement relates to plaintiff’s

“unwillingness to participate in the litigation of her claim.” Motion at 2. Counsel state that

plaintiff has not responded to their repeated attempts to elicit discovery responses and discuss

the settlement proposal. Counsel further assert that they have “made several attempts to

communicate with Plaintiff by telephone, email and letters, in an attempt to communicate and

resolve the communication issues with Plaintiff.” Id. Counsel state they notified plaintiff

Case 2:09-md-02096-FJM Document 1441 Filed 04/28/11 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

of their intention to withdraw in two separate letters, served plaintiff with their motion to

withdraw, and notified plaintiff of information about her case, as required by LRCiv

83.3(b)(2)(A). 

Because counsel have attempted to communicate with plaintiff about her case and

plaintiff has been non-responsive, there is good cause for withdrawal. See ER 1.16(b)(5).

IT IS ORDERED GRANTING the motion to withdraw as counsel for plaintiff Carla

Henry (doc. 1406). All future notice to plaintiff Carla Henry shall be to the address listed

in the motion. 

DATED this 28th day of April, 2011.

Case 2:09-md-02096-FJM Document 1441 Filed 04/28/11 Page 2 of 2