Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-md-02096/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-md-02096-26/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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

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:

Christopher Vance v. Matrixx Initiatives,

Inc. et al.

10-cv-1637-PHX-FJM

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. MDL 09-2096-PHX-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it a motion from lawyers Christopher L. Schnieders and Thomas

P. Cartmell to withdraw as counsel for plaintiff Christopher Vance (doc. 1051). Plaintiff has

not responded. No trial date has been set. 

Counsel’s motion is accompanied by certification that counsel notified plaintiff in

writing of the status of his case, and included information about orders and deadlines. See

LRCiv 83.3(b)(2). Counsel made many attempts to contact plaintiff regarding the urgent

need to comply with defendants’ discovery requests: (1) counsel emailed plaintiff to warn

him that his case might be in jeopardy if he did not respond to several questions; (2) counsel

wrote plaintiff about the need to respond to defendants’ Special Interrogatories and Requests

for Admission; (3) counsel sent a letter via Federal Express indicating that the responses

were seriously past due; and finally (4) counsel sent another letter via both Federal Express

and Certified Mail warning plaintiff that if he did not respond within three days, counsel

Case 2:09-md-02096-FJM Document 1161 Filed 11/19/10 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 -

would withdraw and his case would likely be dismissed. Motion to Withdraw, ex. A.

Counsel then sent plaintiff a letter informing him that they were seeking permission to

withdraw. Id., ex. B. 

Counsel have demonstrated that they made every reasonable effort to contact plaintiff.

Counsels’ communications clearly outlined the urgency and importance of plaintiff’s

obligations in this litigation. Plaintiff has been non-responsive. Therefore, there is good

cause for withdrawal. See ER 1.16(c). 

We urge plaintiff to read this order and seek the aid of a lawyer.

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

Christopher Vance (doc. 1051). All future notice to plaintiff Christopher Vance shall be to

the address listed in the motion.

DATED this 19th day of November, 2010.

Case 2:09-md-02096-FJM Document 1161 Filed 11/19/10 Page 2 of 2