Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-4_05-cv-00596/USCOURTS-ared-4_05-cv-00596-0/pdf.json

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

---

1

I first addressed the multi-plaintiff issue in August, 2004. See In re Prempro, 4:03-CV01507-WRW, Doc. No. 329. The Order reads “all attorneys filing related cases in the future

should avoid filing complaints joining unrelated individuals as parties-plaintiff . . . .”

(emphasis in original).

2

Concetta Alsin will remain in the original lawsuit. However, within 40 days of the date

of this Order, she must cure the complaint to remove any unnecessary defendants.

3

An exception to this Order is that a plaintiff and her spouse and children (or any other

associated derivative claimant) need not be severed from each other.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

WESTERN DIVISION

In re: 

PREMPRO PRODUCTS LIABILITY 

LITIGATION

CONCETTA ALSIN, et al.

v.

WYETH, INC., et al.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

MDL Docket No. 4:03CV1507-WRW

 4:05CV00596-WRW

PLAINTIFFS

 

 DEFENDANTS

ORDER

After reviewing this case, I believe that the Complaint violates my numerous orders on

multi-plaintiff complaints,1 as well as the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, under

Rule 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, every plaintiff other than the first named

plaintiff,2 is DROPPED from this civil action as follows:

(1) Dropped plaintiffs have 30 days from the date of this Order to file new, individual3

complaints in a proper venue. The complaints should be served in accordance with the Rules of

Civil Procedure.

Case 4:05-cv-00596-BRW Document 35 Filed 02/12/10 Page 1 of 3
4

By telephone, if not in the flesh.

2

(2) It seems to me that it would be meet and proper if counsel for the respective parties

would meet and confer4

 regarding the court in which these cases might be refiled. This

observation is, of course, hortatory vice mandatory.

(3) Without further order of the Court, claims of dropped plaintiffs who do not file new

civil actions within the 30 day period will be considered dismissed without prejudice.

(4) Dropped plaintiffs are deemed to have ongoing MDL No. 1507 actions in this Court

for all purposes for 30 days after the date of this Order or until the filing of their new complaints

in the appropriate venue -- whichever is first.

(5) For the application of statutes of limitations, laches, or other time-bar laws, the filing

date of a newly filed action pursuant to this Order will be deemed to relate back to the date that

the dropped plaintiff originally filed her complaint -- insofar as the new complaint alleges only

the claims alleged in the original complaint and joins only the defendants named (or fewer) in

the original complaint, or the successors of such original defendants.

(6) Counsel are reminded of their obligations under MDL Panel Rule 7.5(e) and directed

to promptly notify the MDL Panel of the new case number designated to the case in the receiving

district.

(7) The Clerk of the Court is directed to send a contemporaneous copy of this order to

the MDL panel to allow, to the extent possible, fast-tracking of § 1407 transfers of these cases

back to MDL No. 1507 for coordinated and consolidated pretrial proceedings. 

The following applies only to Plaintiff Kathleen Scharff:

(8) Plaintiff Kathleen Scharff is an in extremis plaintiff who is alleging breast cancer

injuries against only the Wyeth and Pfizer defendants. Accordingly, I find that she no longer

needs to be consolidated in MDL No. 1507. If Plaintiff Scharff commences a new action, she

Case 4:05-cv-00596-BRW Document 35 Filed 02/12/10 Page 2 of 3
3

must promptly file a statement with that court indicating that the case is not appropriate for

transfer to MDL No. 1507, because: (1) Plaintiff was previously a party in that multidistrict

litigation (specifically, in Case No. 4:05CV00596-WRW); and (2) the presiding judge in MDL

No. 1507 determined that the continued inclusion of Plaintiff’s claims in the multidistrict

litigation was no longer warranted. A copy of this Order must be attached to that statement. 

IT IS SO ORDERED this 12th day of February, 2010.

 /s/ Wm. R. Wilson, Jr.

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:05-cv-00596-BRW Document 35 Filed 02/12/10 Page 3 of 3