Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01598/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01598-3/pdf.json

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

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE HYDROXYCUT MARKETING

AND SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION

________________________________

ERIN L. STAMMER, 

 Plaintifs,

 vs.

IOVATE HEALTH SCIENCES, U.S.A.,

INC., et al.,

 Defendants.

CASE NO. 09md2087 BTM (KSC)

 

CASE NO. 11cv1598 BTM(KSC)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SET

ASIDE DISMISSAL

Plaintiff Erin L. Stammer has filed a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 to set aside the

judgment of dismissal. For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED

WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

I. FACTS

On April 4, 2012, Defendant Iovate Health Sciences U.S.A., Inc. (“Defendant”) filed a

request for dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims for failure to provide a timely Plaintiff Fact Sheet

1 09md2087

Case 3:11-cv-01598-BTM-KSC Document 34 Filed 07/23/12 Page 1 of 5
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

(“PFS”) in accordance with the Court’s May 17, 2010 order and Case Management Order

(“CMO”) dated September 10, 2010.

The CMO outlines the procedure in the event of any deficiencies relating to a PFS. 

According to the CMO, certain deficiencies, including failure to serve a PFS, shall be deemed

“Threshold Deficiencies.” After receipt of a Deficiency Notice that identifies a Threshold

Deficiency, a Plaintiff shall have 25 days to cure the deficiencies. If the Plaintiff fails to cure

any Threshold Deficiency identified in the Deficiency notice, Defendant may file the Deficiency

Notice and Request for Dismissal with the Court.

After the filing of a Request for Dismissal, the CMO provides that the Plaintiff has an

additional fifteen (15) days to serve a certification that Plaintiff has served a PFS curing the

Threshold Deficiency (and all the required authorizations identified in its instructions), and must

attach appropriate documentation demonstrating such service. Absent such certification,

Defendant’s Request for Dismissal shall be granted and the case dismissed without prejudice.

On August 22, 2011, October 6, 2011, and October 12, 2011, Defendant’s counsel

corresponded with Plaintiff’s counsel, informing Plaintiff’s counsel that Plaintiff had not

completed a Claimant Information Sheet (“CIS”), which was required to participate in mediation,

or a PFS. (Exs. A, B, and C to Herman Decl. in support of Request for Dismissal). On

December 12, 2011, Plaintiff provided a CIS but did not provide a PFS. (Herman Decl. ¶ 5.) 

On March 1, 2012, Defendant mailed a Deficiency Notice toPlaintiff’s counsel identifying

Plaintiff’s failure to timely provide a PFS.

On April 9, 2012, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why her claims against

Defendant should not be dismissed. The Court informed Plaintiff that if she did not, by April

19, 2012, file and serve a certification that she had completed and provided Defendant with a

PFS and all required authorizations, her claims were subject to dismissal without prejudice. 

The Court also directed Plaintiff to respond to the OSC on or before April 25, 2012. Plaintiff

did not file a certification or a response to the OSC.

Accordingly, on April 27, 2012, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s claims without prejudice. 

 That same day, the Clerk entered judgment dismissing Plaintiff’s claims without prejudice.

2 09md2087

Case 3:11-cv-01598-BTM-KSC Document 34 Filed 07/23/12 Page 2 of 5
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

II. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff moves to set aside the judgment of dismissal on the ground of mistake or

excusable neglect. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1). As discussed below, the Court finds that such

relief is not warranted.

The term “excusable neglect” extends to cases of negligence, carelessness, and

inadvertent mistake. Bateman v. United States Postal Service, 231 F.3d 1220 (9th Cir. 2000). 

In determining whether negligence on the part of counsel constitutes “excusable neglect,”

courts consider the following four factors set forth in Pioneer Investment Services Co. v.

Brunswick Associates Ltd. Partnership, 507 U.S. 380, 395 (1993): (1) the danger of prejudice

to the opposing party; (2) the length of the delay and its potential impact on the proceedings;

(3) the reason for the delay; and (4) whether the movant acted in good faith. Bateman, 231

F.3d at 1223. 

Plaintiff contends that she believed that she had complied with all relevant deadlines.

She states that Defendant now has all of the requested documents and has therefore suffered

no prejudice.

However, as of the filing of Defendant’ s Opposition to Plaintiff’s motion, Plaintiff had not

provided Defendant with a PFS. Plaintiff has not filed anything with the Court showing that a

completed PFS has been provided to Defendant. In December 2011, Plaintiff provided

Defendant with a CIS, but never provided Defendant with a PFS. It was clear from the

correspondence between Defendant’s counsel and Plaintiff’s counsel that the PFS was a

separate and additional requirement. In the Request for Dismissal [Doc. No. 22], Defendant’s

counsel reiterated that although they had received a CIS from Plaintiff, they had not received

a completed PFS. 

Plaintiff did not respond to the OSC. If Plaintiff somehow believed that she was in

compliance with the OSC and all relevant deadlines, she should have filed a response to that

effect. Instead, Plaintiff remained silent, and the case was dismissed. Plaintiff does not

explain why she failed to respond to the OSC.

3 09md2087

Case 3:11-cv-01598-BTM-KSC Document 34 Filed 07/23/12 Page 3 of 5
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

Significantly, Plaintiff did not provide Defendant with a completed PFS upon filing this

motion. The CMO provides: 1

In the event that Plaintiff discovers any material information that it did not,

and through ordinary diligence could not, possess prior to a dismissal without

prejudice pursuant to the procedures above, Plaintiff shall have sixty (60) days

from the entry of the order of dismissal without prejudice to file a motion to

reinstate the original complaint against the Defendant(s) dismissed pursuant to

the procedures in this Order. Plaintiff’s motion shall be accompanied by either

(a) a signed consent to the reinstatement by the dismissed Defendant(s), or (b)

a completed and signed PFS and supporting documentation.

Even setting aside the requirement of newly discovered material information, Plaintiff has failed

to submit a signed consent to reinstatement by Defendant or a completed and signed PFS and

supporting documentation.

Defendant has been trying to get Plaintiff to provide the PFS for almost a year now. The

delay caused by Plaintiff is significant. Plaintiff has not provided an adequate explanation for

her failure to provide the PFS and, even worse, apparently still has not provided the PFS.

The Court finds that relief under Rule 60(b)(1) is not warranted and therefore denies

without prejudice Plaintiff’s request to set the judgment of dismissal aside.

III. CONCLUSION 

For the reasons discussed above, Plaintiff’s motion to reopen and/or set aside dismissal

(Doc. No. 29) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Court is disturbed by what appears to

be a lack of diligence on Plaintiff’s counsel’s part. The Court is even more concerned that

Plaintiff’s counsel has displayed a lack of respect for the Court. Even if Plaintiff’s counsel was

confused about the difference between a CIS and a PFS, he should have filed a response to

the Court’s OSC, explaining that he believed that he had complied with all requirements. 

When, in opposition to the motion to set aside, Defendant pointed out that the PFS was a

separate requirement, Plaintiff’s counsel should have promptly admitted his mistake to the

Court in a reply and should have served Defendant with the PFS. 

On May 6, 2012, after the case was dismissed, Plaintiff provided Amendment 1 to the 1

PFS. However, it appears that no PFS has been provided to Defendant.

4 09md2087

Case 3:11-cv-01598-BTM-KSC Document 34 Filed 07/23/12 Page 4 of 5
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

However, the Court is reluctant to deprive Plaintiff of the opportunity to pursue her claims

based on her counsel’s conduct. Therefore, the Court will consider setting aside the dismissal

if, within 30 days: (1) Plaintiff’s counsel pays to Defendant’s counsel the sum of $1,000,

representing reasonable attorney’s fees for bringing the motion to dismiss and opposing the

motion to set aside (4 hours at $250 per hour); (2) Plaintiff serves a complete PFS on

Defendant; (3) Plaintiff files a certification with the Court that Plaintiff has served Defendant

with the PFS and that Plaintiff’s counsel has paid the $1,000 to Defendant’s counsel; and (4)

Plaintiff files a new motion to set aside the dismissal based on Plaintiff’s compliance with the

Court’s requirements. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 23, 2012

BARRY TED MOSKOWITZ, Chief Judge

United States District Court

5 09md2087

Case 3:11-cv-01598-BTM-KSC Document 34 Filed 07/23/12 Page 5 of 5